Social desirability bias
This, my friend, is circular reasoning. Richard Hanania's explanation, weak as it is due to its conflation of cause and consequence, is till better than this.
"Left-wing views have always had high cache in academia and elite media."
Not before the New Deal.
I don't think funding is very important, either. The libertarians had a lot of funding and mostly blew it. Likewise, the current leftwing spiral did not arise with a large amount of funding.
"This means that the best writers and opinionators will tend to lean left to a higher degree."
I think this explanation is extremely weak, though has a grain of truth to it at the present time. Even if this is true today, for how long was this true?
“Social desirability” is a manmade construct, designed, created, and delivered through educational institutions and the mind-controlling avenues of media. Left-wing ownership of all media, and (increasingly radical) left-wing infiltration of lower and higher education have shaped ideologies.
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963.
Here are published communist goals numbered 15 through 21.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
As you can see, the U.S., which his the world’s last bastion of liberty, is well on its way to a full communist takeover. I predict this to be the catalyst for the New World Order, in which an elite .01% will rule the world.
I also predict that most of those who currently believe this is the right direction for humanity will live to rue any part they played in its downfall.
As an aside, I suggest you look up at the Unz Review, unz.com. Ron Unz is a highly intelligent and very intellectually honest jewish former silicon valley entrepreneur and paleocon who now runs a webpage that collects dissident writers from the old left to the radical right.
Mr Unz is also a fine writer and I strongly suggest you check up his series American Pravda, a collection of maybe fifty long form essays covering a broad range of topics that are taboo in the mainstream media.
Good points, but not overall convincing. This is to a part circular reasoning.
Academia was certainly not left wing to a large degree in the 1910s.
You have to look at how it started. And what affects the public opionion more than anything else? The overall culture. And how is that created? By the press, publishing, film and television.
And there is a certain ethnic group, known for it's desire for a liberal multicultural society because it's in their group interests to live in one because there they can exert more power and doesnät risk pogroms, that have either controlled from the start or gradually took over all these prime mover institutions.
I think its also because of younger generations being veri impressionable and wanting to renegate against their conservative parents in their search for true identity, if you are living in a 1st world country, and you still think being on the left is viable and that you are right for that, (although you may have good intentions because a % of people on the left arent evil they are just missguided and sensitive to the big problems the world around them faces) You have failed to grow as a human.
I agree, I will say though I feel like a lot of it is due to the right's failure, so much of the conservatives / right-wing political leader try to divorce it from genuinely popular discontents (see the influence of Buckleyism), the right wouldn't capitalize on it's on social desirability, the right's idea can sound good for a large swath of people, Limbaugh got popular by voicing popular discontents not abstract intellectualism (Voegelin, Rand, Kirk, Strauss, Richard Weaver). I think it sounds scary for many on the right, in the 90s rightist who voiced popular discontent were David Duke, Patrick Buchanan and Ross Perot who all could be argued to be semi-fascist, in the 10s we got it again with Donald Trump. I'm not sure how the line will be drawn.