[r_smart]

But how is that a defense? Surely by that token you have no complaints about anything in the world. Just because a person does something unethical for a reward doesn't mean their actions are justified, just rational.

The whole purpose the press existence is to be an independent check on government and to pose to politicians the questions that the electorate cares about.

edit: Just to be clear, nobody (or nearly so) finds your claim controversial or new. It's flaw isn't that it's incorrect, it's that it isn't useful*.

[spaceheeder]

It's not a defense, but it's not a distinction without a difference. If the problem is collusion on behalf of a particular ideology then the solution is different than if it's a problem caused by current models for monetization of news media being driven by short term consumption habits and an attendant compulsion on the part of journalists to get something, anything, new before their peers do even if it's grade F horse shit and they had to sell out to get it.

The rhetoric I was replying to implied that the politicians and the journalists are on the same team because they have the same goals. That's not the case. I think keeping that in mind is plenty useful.

[pdx]

I think I can disprove your premise right here.

    Of course, as The Center for Public Integrity [1] recently pointed out, "journalists" aren't just 
    making "in-kind" contributions to the Clinton campaign, they're donating real cash as well.  
    In fact, according the their review of political contributions made by people working in 
    various media outlets, 96% were found to go to Hillary while only 4% accrued to the benefit 
    of the Trump campaign.

[1] https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists...

[spaceheeder]

I'm not stipulating any of my claims on the lack of lopsidedness in the editorial positions of the journalists in question. A Really Big Number doesn't change what they care about more: being on the same team as the Democrats, or their drip-feeds from campaigns.

[r_smart]

They're not mutually exclusive (monetary and ideological motivations), and they're actually both true. Not all the time, not unceasingly, but both still present.

If they were motivated purely by money, they'd all be promoting Trump. He has driven a shocking amount of traffic / wealth to all journalist outlets. Stories they write on him are massively more popular, and he's demonstrated he'll cut off access for their lying. So if it was just money, pussy grabbing would be a good thing.

[spaceheeder]

If they thought that far ahead, they'd fall behind. They live from headline to headline. The fact that Trump is chum right before the election instead of Clinton is partially stochastic and depended far more on the immediate reception to the stories than anything else.