I'm curious, and I'm honestly asking because I don't know the answer: Has the press always been on the side of those who would introduce socialism, nazism, communism, etc. into the world?The answer, in Dad's words, is "guilty with an explanation, Sir!"
The press exists to make money. Oh, sure, many eons ago they primarily existed to further some cause or other. But most of them now are publicly traded corporations and must, therefore, answer to their investors. Follow me here:
- Investors buy stock in media organizations because they believe they'll make a return on their investment.
- Media organizations, therefore, need to sell product in order to justify the huge amounts of capital they're receiving.
- They know that a certain portion of the population they pander to are well-educated individuals who have formed their opinions over a lifetime of study and experience. Media must avoid these individuals like the plague.
- Everyone else buys their product.
- Since those who are not well-informed tend to be, oh, somewhat gullible, they love it when a newspaper or talk show host communicates in such a way as to make that person feel that they really do have their best interests at heart. "So-and-So has far more money than you do. Senator Wadsdough believes So-and-So should share it with you. So do we."
- This sells.
- Which, in turn, makes money for the investors.
Obvious cynicism and sarcasm aside, don't forget that the primary reasons such things as socialism, communism, and other false religions gained huge followings in the first place was that they sold their audiences a bill of goods: Make them believe that our way of life will make their lives better, but don't EVER let them see the real agenda or they might get wise to us.
Media may know all too well what the real agendas are. But, since reporting on those agendas validates them, media becomes instantly unpopular. Sales of their products will plummet and the investors will take back their cash.
The Circle of Life comes to a grinding halt.