[ancap]

> I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable.

That's not surprising as the media, speaking generally, is a class which aligns itself closely with the ruling class and is incentivized to maintain the status quo.

[bell-cot]

Um...how many stories in the media, from the front page of the NYTimes to top-grossing movies, are about the incompetence & evils of governments & members of ruling classes?

I'm thinking that the problem is audience bias. Outside of a few little niches, running "All Is Well in Happy Valley"-type stories does not pay the bills.

[ancap]

> Um...how many stories in the media, from the front page of the NYTimes to top-grossing movies, are about the incompetence & evils of governments & members of ruling classes?

I don't have a copy of today's NYT so I'll leave it to someone else to perform the exercise. But it's besides the point. You're asking the wrong question. Again speaking generally, when the media criticizes the "incompetence & evils of governments" it is in effort to elevate or promote some other government party, or to promote their alternative program or policy, not to fundamentally alter the system of government itself. When they criticize a member of the ruling class it frequently is part of a coordinated PR campaign organized by another member of the ruling class.

Anyone part of the media who veers too off course the path of allowable opinion is quickly reigned in or let go.

[jiriknesl]

Yes, but when you report about missteps of governments and members of ruling class, you can either frame it as:

The system (democracy for example) is good, it's bad people doing it wrong.

or

The system is bad, it attracts, and it will always attract psychopaths.

Media are using only the first approach and almost never the second.