“The notion of editorial independence from ownership only dates back to the 1930s. Prior to that time the media was openly biased and that includes the Press that the founding fathers dealt with. Some of the founders like Hamilton and Franklin had actually ran media outlets that were very biased. You used to have things like Newspapers that openly proclaimed they were a Democratic or Republican or Whig or a Federalist newspaper right on the banner. The concept of an independent and allegedly neutral press was and still is mainly pushed by people from the left who do NOT want anything remotely neutral, but who instead want to make sure those "evil" business interests don't have a means of getting their side aired without it being filtered by their idea of what a neutral press consists of.”

Not quite sure how to rate this because, as accurate as it is, it doesn't go far enough. For example, progressive dogma has become the 'national establishment of religion' with what calls itself media, is nothing more than an enclave of ecclesiastical propagators. Calling the MSM 'fake news', is almost a politically correct niceity (spin of fabricated falsehoods only begins to illustrate the current notion of editorial independence or a neutral press).

Something about this reminds me of Sean Hannity's recent interview with the liberal commentator from CBS.

Our local newspaper was once an organ of the democrat party. 'Nuff said.

Things haven't changed one bit except for the fact MSM is now totally corrupt... with the addition of another manipulator, the military/CIA/SS/and the PA

Media bias is rampant along with our public education and the Hollywood perverters.

The unbiased have the true vision.