They also don’t learn economics. What they learn is a basic form of Econ 101 and nothing more substantial. They don’t learn to understand the price mechanism and how important that is to understanding scarcity. Few understand Public Choice theory because they have absorbed the idea that the government is full of good intentioned people. They only question the ideals of those with whom they don’t see eye to eye ideologically.

I would also add that journalist are afraid to lose their ability to get “close to the action,” if they were to begin to question the State’s actors. They would lose a source of power to influence public opinion. After all they take a job in which they hope people will find them insightful and important.

Because the mainstream media are part of the state, as I see it. Not formally of course. The US Constitution does not specify media. But such a constitution could not work as intended without media. Information must flow between the voters and the government.

I propose we can expect to see biases in media which grow in this niche created by the state. Although my argument is fragmentary, I find it natural to believe these media will be supportive of the larger organization that makes their existence possible. After all, the more questions are decided in capitals, the more communication is needed between voters and capitals – the more work for mainstream media.

On the other hand, if a medium investigates critically and convinces some voters that state action is inappropriate, this reduces the demand for communications between voters and capitals, and reduces the size of the market in which the medium makes a living.

Maybe one day I will write this idea in greater length. I hope to.