Michael Jensen opines:
I argue that the mass media is best understood as producers of entertainment, not information, and that the theories and facts that people absorb from the media are a by-product of their consumption of the entertainment value of the news. ... To explain the anti-market bias of the media I argue that we must understand the family environment in which people are raised. I outline a theory of the family that is based on the notion that all exchanges must be balanced if two or more parties are to continue in relationship. The family is characterized by the absence of quid pro quo exchanges, and I argue that this occurs because it is inefficient in such relationships to keep the books balanced on a transaction by transaction basis. As a result, the family is organized around non quid pro quo exchanges, and this causes people to erroneously believe that such exchanges are the appropriate way to organize large groups or even societies. This element of consumer demand helps explain why the press is generally biased in its presentation of market vs. collectivist solutions to problems faced in modern societies.
BTW, does this mean we can blame modern liberalism on bad parenting? (Heh.)