Well, yeah. I've always maintained that mainstream media is an establishment organ, as opposed to an ideological one. There are examples of exceptions to the general rule, and maybe I picked a bone at some point for the sake of entertainment - and there is a bit of implicit bias due to education/background. But for the most part the writers/pundits cater to the perceived agendas of their editors/producers, who cater to the agenda of the VPs, who cater to the perceived (or at this level, flatly stated)agenda of the CEO and various powerful board members.

There are usually "layers" so it isn't as if the people in the trenches are being told what to write, exactly. (Though there are exception, like Faux News channel where Murdoch and Aisles both did literally have a red line direct to the production room, where guests that said the wrong things would be summarily dismissed/cut off) But if they want to write/say something useful they usually won't get a budget to do so (even NYT writers that do real investigative journalism usually do so in the form of an outside book deal.)

By the same token, if say, some folks in the "trenches" at say, CBS, did do something like say, a real expose on quantitative easing cash flow and how it helped empower the most corrupt elements of Wall St to put an even greater stranglehold on the economy - expect heads to roll.

This has always been obvious, and after the previous election cycle, should hopefully be obvious to more people. Mainstream media in the US is pretty much garbage, despite occasionally (very rarely these days,) doing something meaningful.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)