The idea that these news organizations are monolithic structures where hive minded journalists are endlessly seeking to push their master’s message is on its face ludicrous, as are all conspiracy theories.
Newspapers have long past turned into media, news is commodified and the value add of the news outlet is opinion. It is inevitable that publishers turn to opinion in an age where facts are free, widely disseminated, and not subject to copyright.
The line between reporting facts and stating opinions has been blurred so much that you've seen revolts in journalism schools (e.g. ASU's Walter Cronkite school) to oust deans that discourage confessional style opinion journalism as they vainly advocate for professionality and objectivity over activism. Activism and emotion is what generates clicks as younger reporters view themselves as crusaders "standing up" for justice in a world of iniquity rather than delivering information about events to the public. The public already can access all the information they need whenever they want. There just isn't that much room for value add in the current age of ubiquitous information.
That kind of reporting is almost a niche genre at this point outside of small town papers. Everyone now seems to have a very obvious agenda, and the consumers seem to mainly want news that fits their own agenda. Again this isn't a conspiracy this is just the direction that the market forces took news into. A polarized ideological consumerbase, wants news that matches their polarized politics.
Oh but it’s so glorious! Here in Annapolis we’re a small city (under 50k) but as a state capital we’re able to support a pretty good local newspaper (the capital gazette). It’s so refreshing to read articles by journalists that don’t wear their politics on their sleeves.
There's a growing number of young journalists who believe that objectivity is wrong and, because of that, choose to be overtly biased in what they report. In the broader sense, it's extremely common for news outlets to pass over stories that don't fit the narrative of their political affiliation. Even otherwise good journalists may pass on a story if they know it will result in them being seen unfavorably by leadership.
Even leadership at these companies may steer the newsroom in certain directions if they seem favorable to their parent media company, whether they agree with it or not, because they know they have a chance of getting axed if their publication or broadcast says the wrong thing.
> The idea that these news organizations are monolithic structures where hive minded journalists are endlessly seeking to push their master’s message is on its face ludicrous, as are all conspiracy theories.
Have you had any actual experience inside a newsroom? In my experience, there's tons of groupthink that happens among journalists. There's nothing that makes journalists any different from average people, whom have a tendency to form cohorts with likeminded people. At one news outlet I worked for, a certain person in leadership(whose name and title I will leave nameless) mentioned in a meeting that there happen to be some journalists at the company who lean conservative; people in the meeting couldn't believe it and nearly flipped out, like it's a bad thing that someone is conservative, or that it's a given that all journalists identify as liberal. Lots of thought and communication among journalists occurs over Twitter, which helped facilitate an echo chamber rather than diffuse it.
I simply don't agree that notions that there are hive minded groups of journalists are "all conspiracy theories". I'm sure there are some good groups of journalists out there but, from where I'm standing, they seem few and far between. There's nothing farfetched about a company having its own culture and unique hiring practices; it's human nature that happens all the time in and outside the media. It doesn't necessarily have to be driven by overt plans to manipulate anyone. Rather, what a news organization publishes is often influenced by whatever the incentive structure is. For journalism, the incentive structure that governs it promotes low-grade reports on news that hasn't been fully fleshed out combined with some carefully disguised opinion material intended to keep people reading. Currently there's little to no enforcement of efficiently informing readers since the desire for profit and prestige has overtaken the desire for integrity.
None of this is new, though. It's just been accelerated recently. Look up the history of "yellow journalism". American journalism has a long history of publishing tripe to sway the public at the behest of media titans.
Also, please don't cast aspersions like "only seems accurate" and "conspiracy theories." There is no conjecture in this editorial: It's somebody's opinion about recent, real developments in major newspapers.