Maggie's Farm

A large part of the US media is trying to become an quasi- agent of the government. If you view them as a group seeking security then their actions are easily explained.

Unconsciously they are striving to become a Fannie Mae of news, immune from consequences*. To be free to just keep producing words and pictures, big salaries and good times.

They are merely following the NEA and hundreds of other government supported entities who need not depend on satisfying the public as long as they can bribe the Congress.

Since the Democratic Party is the traditional supporter of more government activities the US media will support it.

Those nasty Republicans might actually reduce the size and scope of government. That is exceedingly unlikely of course. But why take any chances?

*One can say the stockholders of Fannie Mae were not immune from consequences. That is true. At the moment their stock is nearly worthless. But the stockholders are not Fannie Mae. The employees and the agency sail on. A few deck chairs are rearranged, reform is pretended, lectures on integrity are endured, and soon the dogs will cease barking.

Meta: agreed the government can't save the press and under our present scheme can only leave it alone.

I was arguing that many in the MSM feel increasing economic pressure. And they also feel they are becoming less secure and important. And those feelings are in good part correct.

What form of government policies are preferred by those under economic pressure, those who feel less secure and less important?

Hint: It isn't smaller government and unhampered economic competition.

No. Such people want the government to provide security, a nobody-gets-hurt society, a can't- you-see-how-mean- competition-is society, a self-esteem-for-everyone society, where all the kids are above average.

Which party would they favor?

Added comment: A free media presents a very difficult problem in a socialist society. If the socialism is total the government owns all. It isn't hard to figure out how free the media is then.

It seems to follow that as a nation becomes more, but not totally, socialistic the freedom of the media must be eroded away. But exactly how is not clear. And at this hour who cares?