"I have never been much of a Party Man myself... and the more I learn of the realities of national politics, the more I'm convinced that the Democratic Party is an atavistic endeavor - more of an Obstacle than a Vehicle - and that there is really no hope of accomplishing anything genuinely new or different in American politics until the Democratic Party is done away with."
- Hunter S Thompson, 1972
Well. At least the idea has been around for awhile I suppose. Certainly, the so-called leftism of the Democratic Party does more damage than good, diverting possible radicalism into a systemically safe endeavor. Party loyalties may be one of the most damaging things in American politics, or politics in general. Party loyalties are to be defended even when criticism arises. Even when the least offensive members of the GE/Comcast media speak a critical word, the basic goodness of the Democratic Party, and its various representatives lays largely untouched. To hold the opinion that both parties, not just the Republican or Democratic, are despicable organizations that lead only to destruction, is to sacrifice any career in a major media outlet.
This criticism is somewhat acknowledged in society. FOX News is recognized as critical of the Democrats, while lovingly groveling at the feet of the Republican Party, while CNN and MSNBC do the opposite. This is hardly controversial, although some may claim that one or the other is "unbiased" simply because it supports their personal political ideals. But why don't their exist mainstream pundits that extend beyond this? Where are those that criticize both? They aren't around because they are systemically dangerous. If you criticize both, then, at least to some extent, questions the legitimacy of the current state of politics as a whole. If both parties are unfit to lead, then who?
But why would an independent media want to support the government nearly unquestioningly? The answer, of course, is that the media is hardly independent. Sure, we may not have something as obviously state-driven as Pravda, but this does not indicate integrity. Instead of a directly state-run media we have a corporate run media. And the corporations that run them have as much a vested interest in the state as the state itself.
But what is there to do? How do we fight monoliths that own the media? How do we get to truth? Well. Fortunately this is becoming easier and easier, and true radicalism is beginning to have a viable outlet through the internet, and being paid directly through readers. It leaves little room for censoring. The vanguard journalists shall still exist, because people that honestly believe as they do exist. But their monopoly may very well come to an end soon. And with the greater voice of radicalism, it may actually allow for change in the future.