I have no idea why an economic bag of hair like Virginia Postrel ever gets respect, but now she has one of her moronic analysis slopped onto the Business Editorial Page at the New York Times. She just can't figure out why media bias doesn't affect circulation "because in any other business......." blah blah blah. Then like every New Age Slut, she quotes a bunch of professors who "built a model," that shows the more competition the more bias in news.

Ever heard of Monopolies, bitch? Like when you are the only kid on the playground you play whatever you want to play? Last girl in the bar always gets laid on her terms? A great white shark eats whatever it wants to eat? Ever "model" that?

The cost of entry into the newspaper "business" is higher than building an oil refinery. So we would have capital intensive meets entrenched monopoly. Period.

I'd like to add for those of you who live outside of SoCal; former mayor Riordan, a true mega millionaire many times over, looked over bucking the LA Times and backed out. Just consider one field: Major League Baseball. How many years does it take to insinuate a reporter into a team so players will talk to him; that management will talk to him; that he can get people inside other teams to talk to you? Now multiply that over the spectrum of news and you have a very expensive start up with no guarantee of any success at all. To top it off, these papers are all parts of huge media conglomorates, therefore you have a "business" that can have a part or two have bad income. And so on.

She is the fake of all time. Writing for the one organization that might seriously challenge for that title. None of the biased fish wraps will change at all until their advertisers balk. But the Liberal Elite, with their tons of money, want to read the bias because it tells them what they want to hear.

Why else would that bag of hair be writing for them?