This is why it is important to have partisans of both stripes in the press. The problem today is that all we have are democrat partisans in the main stream press.
First paragraph dead on; second paragraph has a hitch. Exactly because "it's all about them" with journalists, and journalism does nothing except criticize, condemn and complain, it is impossible for journalism to be anything other than socialist.Because socialism is exactly criticism and second guessing, Big Journalism is a political party of the left. And, since the Vietnam era, the Democratic Party has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Journalism. And since second guessing makes you look smart when you are out of power but doesn't qualify you to be dog catcher let alone POTUS, the logical result of Big Journalism in power is the Clinton "symbolism over substance" "continuous political campaign" presidency. Unable to actively take risk, but doomed to take the enormous risk of paralysis and inaction.
You offer an interesting theory, but I don't really buy it. I see no evidence in history that the press is inherently socialist. As evidence go back and look at the Federalist Papers and consider the press environment in which they were written. There was a vigorous debate in the country as to what form the government should take. And the debate was anything but socialist vs. socialist.
This is not to say that for at least the last 40 years what you say has been true. In that time period the press has undoubtedly been completely socialist in its perspective. This simply reflects the dominant view of elite opinion in that era. But the last 40 years does not constitute the totality of history. And, hopefully, it does not portend history's end.