These are absolutely irrelevant to the moguls who run these companies. Even if they say differently, they don't mind subsidizing a "progressive" news outlet at the cost of a few million a year---which they siphon from their much more profitable enterprises---if it allows them to go to their cocktail parties and golf games and appear "with it," "concerned" and not part of the "right wing" establishment. So here is an example of where Marx was clearly wrong: they constantly go against their "class interest" because they would rather fit in socially than make more money or even beat the competitors.
As for "whoppers" and "fair and balanced," what is wrong with "Truthful?" "Honest?" "Accurate?" Presenting ALL sides may include the "right answer," but it also ensures several "wrong answers" will also get an airing. Why not endeavor beforehand to find out the truth, and report ONLY that? Jesus never gave Satan "equal time."
someone (don't think you) gleefully reports the "death" of the "Dinsaur media" based on falling subscriptions, viewership, or profits.
Ping to abb and Milhous.These are absolutely irrelevant to the moguls who run these companies. Even if they say differently, they don't mind subsidizing a "progressive" news outlet at the cost of a few million a year---which they siphon from their much more profitable enterprises---if it allows them to go to their cocktail parties and golf games and appear "with it," "concerned" and not part of the "right wing" establishment.
I think that the truth of that observation is limited - IMHO the leftism of journalism is explicable in terms of economics, and that the leftism of journalism is what makes leftism the easy way to get along in politics. Take away the profitability of journalism, and IMHO the barriers to entry of competitors will be equalized. Most especially when (Congressman Billybob assures us it's not if, with the current composition of SCOTUS) McConnell v. FEC gets overturned and McCain-Feingold falls.
Then again, one man's truth is another man's trash? To coin a phrase ;^)
Also, add to the equation, some time ago(who knows when?) some in the journalism community discovered sensationalism sells newspapers. And later, broadcast discovered a similar phenomenon. WHO of the journalism industry were the most likely candidates to pursue the attention getting stories? Limp wristed bleeding hearts or conservatives? WHO were likely the better at creative writing? That is, add a little pizzaz to a story to make it better? Conservatives? I don't think so.
Capture the industry; capture the audience, then feed them what will actually keep them dazed and confused. Throw in some warm and fuzzies about big government being available to tackle their delicate condition and voila. In other words, just buy the soap and hamburgers and let "us" handle things.
The only answer I can see to the propaganda issue is to logically point out that "news" is inherently a superficial category. I look forward to reading that article you recommended from The Historian (turns out that the article in question was a little later than you remembered, apparently - my son said it was from 1975, I think it was). But the point, certainly, is that restricting your attention to the recent and the sensational is a bias.
Make that point in court, and not only the FCC licensed broadcast journalists but even all the print journalists who participate in the monopoly known as the Associated Press suddenly would be on extremely tenuous legal footing.
Excellent point, though I think the motivation is much deeper (and more sinister) than fitting in at cocktail parties and country clubs. It’s much more about, as you said, “subsidizing a ‘progressive’ news outlet.” The ownership of most of the Dinosaur Media is liberal, bordering on socialist. Their unending willingness to lose money is about their legacy, their desire to shape society in their own image. It’s the same thing that motivated someone like Soros to say he would spend his entire wealth to defeat George Bush.