7 Removed needless words.
source | link

BriefTwo mutually exclusive hypothetical answer, please skip past the ruled line for an alternative one.

If reality has a left-leaning bias, (let's suppose this for the sake of argument), and mainstream US journalists are generally trained to report on what they see: that could account for the results of the research cited.

A related hypothesis is that since busy individuals owning much property, (e.g. media proprieters), have always attracted courtiers to help them interpret their world, and since courtiers are generally evolved to report on whatever seems most pleasing to their hostsanswers: then such ownership has an unreal bias.


Now let's flip that hypothesis. Suppose that reality has a prosperity-leaning bias, such that only captains of industry, (e.g. media proprieters), and their trusted lieutenants are truly capable of seeing things as they are, as proven on the battlefronts of business.

Whereas journalists digging around like scandal-eating shrews in the valleys and grottoes of the world see mainly that which is low and base, and therefore develop a cynical political bias that favors the limited prospects of their servile class.


Perhaps that's how things sometimes seem to both sides...

  1. If reality has a left-leaning bias, and mainstream US journalists are generally trained to report on what they see: that could account for the results of the research cited.

    A related hypothesis is that since busy individuals owning much property, (e.g. media proprieters), have always attracted courtiers to help them interpret their world, and since courtiers are generally evolved to report on whatever seems most pleasing to their hosts: then such ownership has an unreal bias.

  2. If reality has a right-leaning bias, such that only captains of industry, (e.g. media proprieters), and their trusted lieutenants are truly capable of seeing things as they are, as proven on the battlefronts of business.

    Whereas journalists digging around like scandal-eating shrews in the valleys and grottoes of the world see mainly that which is low and base, and therefore develop a cynical political bias that favors the limited prospects of their servile class.

Note that inIn either of the above hypotheses, the media proprietors are leaning one way, (either toward unreality, or else civic enlightenment), and the journalists are leaning another, (either towards factual reporting, or else flattery plus dirty laundry).

Another thing. Measuring donations might be less than half the story, without considering howhow those donations were earned...

Brief hypothetical answer, please skip past the ruled line for an alternative one.

If reality has a left-leaning bias, (let's suppose this for the sake of argument), and mainstream US journalists are generally trained to report on what they see: that could account for the results of the research cited.

A related hypothesis is that since busy individuals owning much property, (e.g. media proprieters), have always attracted courtiers to help them interpret their world, and since courtiers are generally evolved to report on whatever seems most pleasing to their hosts: then such ownership has an unreal bias.


Now let's flip that hypothesis. Suppose that reality has a prosperity-leaning bias, such that only captains of industry, (e.g. media proprieters), and their trusted lieutenants are truly capable of seeing things as they are, as proven on the battlefronts of business.

Whereas journalists digging around like scandal-eating shrews in the valleys and grottoes of the world see mainly that which is low and base, and therefore develop a cynical political bias that favors the limited prospects of their servile class.


Perhaps that's how things sometimes seem to both sides...

Note that in either of the above hypotheses, the media proprietors are leaning one way, (either toward unreality, or else civic enlightenment), and the journalists are leaning another, (either towards factual reporting, or else flattery plus dirty laundry).

Another thing. Measuring donations might be less than half the story, without considering how those donations were earned...

Two mutually exclusive hypothetical answers:

  1. If reality has a left-leaning bias, and mainstream US journalists are generally trained to report on what they see: that could account for the results of the research cited.

    A related hypothesis is that since busy individuals owning much property, (e.g. media proprieters), have always attracted courtiers to help them interpret their world, and since courtiers are generally evolved to report on whatever seems most pleasing to their hosts: then such ownership has an unreal bias.

  2. If reality has a right-leaning bias, such that only captains of industry, (e.g. media proprieters), and their trusted lieutenants are truly capable of seeing things as they are, as proven on the battlefronts of business.

    Whereas journalists digging around like scandal-eating shrews in the valleys and grottoes of the world see mainly that which is low and base, and therefore develop a cynical political bias that favors the limited prospects of their servile class.

In either of the above hypotheses, the media proprietors are leaning one way, and the journalists are leaning another.

Another thing. Measuring donations might be less than half the story, without considering how those donations were earned...

6 A few more words.
source | link

Note that in either of the above hypotheses, the media proprietors are leaning one way, (either toward unreality, or else civic enlightenment), and the journalists are leaning another, (either towards factual reporting, or else flattery plus dirty laundry).

Variant hypotheses would be united leanings, either with delusional proprietors and pandering journalists, or ideally sensible proprietors and scrupulous journalists. In a crooked world, the latter ideal group might appear very biased in the popular mind.

Note that in either of the above hypotheses, the media proprietors are leaning one way, (either toward unreality, or else civic enlightenment), and the journalists are leaning another, (either towards factual reporting, or else flattery plus dirty laundry).

Variant hypotheses would be united leanings, either with delusional proprietors and pandering journalists, or ideally sensible proprietors and scrupulous journalists. In a crooked world, the latter ideal group might appear very biased in the popular mind.

5 Qualified one bit.
source | link

Brief hypothetical answer, please skip past the ruled line for an alternative one.

If reality has a left-leaning bias, (let's suppose this for the sake of argument), and mainstream US journalists are generally trained to report on what they see: that could account for the results of the research cited.

A related hypothesis is that since busy individuals owning much property, (e.g. media proprieters), have always attracted courtiers to help them interpret their world, and since courtiers are generally evolved to report on whatever seems most pleasing to their hosts: then such ownership has an unreal bias.


Now let's flip that hypothesis. Suppose that reality has a prosperity-leaning bias, such that only captains of industry, (e.g. media proprieters), and their trusted lieutenants are truly capable of seeing things as they are, as proven on the battlefronts of business.

Whereas journalists digging around like scandal-eating shrews in the valleys and grottoes of the world see mainly that which is low and base, and therefore develop a cynical political bias that favors the limited prospects of their servile class.


Perhaps that's how things sometimes seem to both sides...


Another thing. Measuring donations might be less than half the story, without considering how those donations were earned...

Sometimes criminals donate to charity, which may assuage their guilty consciences and also, (if the charity is public), render themselves less hated by their communities. In the same way, since the day-to-day work of journalists often results in them reporting on what their bosses tell them to report on, (puff pieces, routine doings, free publicity for some local celebrity or business, etc.), to the neglect of more serious and useful reporting, (the prevention of catastrophes by early warning), maybe left-leaning journalists feel guiltier, and can't face themselves in the mirror without donating to something.

Example: monetary estimates of the value of the media's having provided virtual free publicity for the Trump campaign in 2016 range as high as $4,900,000,000, (versus $3.24B for Clinton). A left-leaning journalist who was paid to write such stories might devote part of their paycheck to undo the harm they felt they had done at work. Whereas a right-leaning journalist might feel happy to report on their favored candidate, and not feel so great a need to donate to a right-wing cause, since they "already gave at the office".

The dollar amount of any journalist's donations to left-wing causes is necessarilyprobably less than their take-home pay from providing media value to causes which they despise. (Exemplar: "Trump: The Art of the Deal" author Tony Schwartz). The political effect of such penitent donations are probably smaller than the effects of the work done to earn it. So the net political effect might be "negative", (i.e. on the whole a mainstream left-wing journalist might move the nation further right), just as the net moral effect of gang leader donating to an orphanage would probably not offset the overall harm to their community done by them.

Brief hypothetical answer, please skip past the ruled line for an alternative one.

If reality has a left-leaning bias, (let's suppose this for the sake of argument), and mainstream US journalists are generally trained to report on what they see: that could account for the results of the research cited.

A related hypothesis is that since busy individuals owning much property, (e.g. media proprieters), have always attracted courtiers to help them interpret their world, and since courtiers are generally evolved to report on whatever seems most pleasing to their hosts: then such ownership has an unreal bias.


Now let's flip that hypothesis. Suppose that reality has a prosperity-leaning bias, such that only captains of industry, (e.g. media proprieters), and their trusted lieutenants are truly capable of seeing things as they are, as proven on the battlefronts of business.

Whereas journalists digging around like scandal-eating shrews in the valleys and grottoes of the world see mainly that which is low and base, and therefore develop a cynical political bias that favors the limited prospects of their servile class.


Perhaps that's how things sometimes seem to both sides...


Another thing. Measuring donations might be less than half the story, without considering how those donations were earned...

Sometimes criminals donate to charity, which may assuage their guilty consciences and also, (if the charity is public), render themselves less hated by their communities. In the same way, since the day-to-day work of journalists often results in them reporting on what their bosses tell them to report on, (puff pieces, routine doings, free publicity for some local celebrity or business, etc.), to the neglect of more serious and useful reporting, (the prevention of catastrophes by early warning), maybe left-leaning journalists feel guiltier, and can't face themselves in the mirror without donating to something.

Example: monetary estimates of the value of the media's having provided virtual free publicity for the Trump campaign in 2016 range as high as $4,900,000,000, (versus $3.24B for Clinton). A left-leaning journalist who was paid to write such stories might devote part of their paycheck to undo the harm they felt they had done at work. Whereas a right-leaning journalist might feel happy to report on their favored candidate, and not feel so great a need to donate to a right-wing cause, since they "already gave at the office".

The dollar amount of any journalist's donations to left-wing causes is necessarily less than their take-home pay from providing media value to causes which they despise. (Exemplar: "Trump: The Art of the Deal" author Tony Schwartz). The political effect of such penitent donations are probably smaller than the effects of the work done to earn it. So the net political effect might be "negative", (i.e. on the whole a mainstream left-wing journalist might move the nation further right), just as the net moral effect of gang leader donating to an orphanage would probably not offset the overall harm to their community done by them.

Brief hypothetical answer, please skip past the ruled line for an alternative one.

If reality has a left-leaning bias, (let's suppose this for the sake of argument), and mainstream US journalists are generally trained to report on what they see: that could account for the results of the research cited.

A related hypothesis is that since busy individuals owning much property, (e.g. media proprieters), have always attracted courtiers to help them interpret their world, and since courtiers are generally evolved to report on whatever seems most pleasing to their hosts: then such ownership has an unreal bias.


Now let's flip that hypothesis. Suppose that reality has a prosperity-leaning bias, such that only captains of industry, (e.g. media proprieters), and their trusted lieutenants are truly capable of seeing things as they are, as proven on the battlefronts of business.

Whereas journalists digging around like scandal-eating shrews in the valleys and grottoes of the world see mainly that which is low and base, and therefore develop a cynical political bias that favors the limited prospects of their servile class.


Perhaps that's how things sometimes seem to both sides...


Another thing. Measuring donations might be less than half the story, without considering how those donations were earned...

Sometimes criminals donate to charity, which may assuage their guilty consciences and also, (if the charity is public), render themselves less hated by their communities. In the same way, since the day-to-day work of journalists often results in them reporting on what their bosses tell them to report on, (puff pieces, routine doings, free publicity for some local celebrity or business, etc.), to the neglect of more serious and useful reporting, (the prevention of catastrophes by early warning), maybe left-leaning journalists feel guiltier, and can't face themselves in the mirror without donating to something.

Example: monetary estimates of the value of the media's having provided virtual free publicity for the Trump campaign in 2016 range as high as $4,900,000,000, (versus $3.24B for Clinton). A left-leaning journalist who was paid to write such stories might devote part of their paycheck to undo the harm they felt they had done at work. Whereas a right-leaning journalist might feel happy to report on their favored candidate, and not feel so great a need to donate to a right-wing cause, since they "already gave at the office".

The dollar amount of any journalist's donations to left-wing causes is probably less than their take-home pay from providing media value to causes which they despise. (Exemplar: "Trump: The Art of the Deal" author Tony Schwartz). The political effect of such penitent donations are probably smaller than the effects of the work done to earn it. So the net political effect might be "negative", (i.e. on the whole a mainstream left-wing journalist might move the nation further right), just as the net moral effect of gang leader donating to an orphanage would probably not offset the overall harm to their community done by them.

4 Added URL.
source | link
3 Added URL to T. Schwartz example.
source | link
2 Typo.
source | link
1
source | link