During the 90s, the media began developing a much greater relationship with the wingnuts. They gladly took morsels regarding the Clinton "scandals". The rightly saw the Republican Congressional ascendency as a story (and one they really didn't see coming). The Clinton administration, esp. in the first half of his first term, was a mess in terms of management, although it provided lots of leaks. All of this coalesced around reporting that directly or indirectly favored conservatives & the GOP, and did so at a time when 24 hour news cycles and Fox News created a new climate. And the media could try to claim it was not "liberal" any more.

In this administration, it's clear that the Administration has been able to cutoff many of the usual sources of leaks until recently: 2nd & 3rd tier political appointees, dis-satisfied that their bosses aren't listening (in this administration those people tend to be Class A sychophants) and semi-senior civil servants (who often have been closed out of their usual loops and lack access; OTOH, those who cultivate them get great scoops--Sy Hirsch, Dana Priest, & Walter Pincus). Instead, the leaks came from the top--from Rove. It didn't matter that many were propaganda of the most obvious sort or simply wrong. Closing off the leaks meant losing that access. What had begun as all wingnuts all the time during the Clinton era had become refined.

High level leakers are nothing new, but the leaks have tended to be occasional and strategic or more about a particular personality (e.g., making Henry Kissinger look good). Instead, they were the only sources, esp. for the pundits and the more visible WH and national press types. They didn't have the time, inclination, or whatever to find who was "right", they had Karl and they wanted to keep him. They had packaged sound points and returned phone calls from the wingnuts. They had Fox News getting big ratings (and weak demographics). For awhile, Dick Morris seemed to be the Clintonian Rove, but he quickly became a liability (hookers), though long past it was obvious that he was a buffoon and less than a political genius.

In a certain sense, Rove is going from being local to being on the phone. The usual wingnut suspects are still around with their Fox News sound chamber and useful idiots like Drudge. The media know they've been played, to some extent, but they can't lose the sources.

The corporate media "conspiracy", to the extent it exists is much more subtle. You had Fox in "ascendency" and it's "decent" hasn't entirely sunk in, yet. Meanwhile, CNN is like a carnival and a alot of local news is unwatchable. Outside of Fox, there are other corporate media influences, such as Clear Channel, although they do offer Air America in some markets. None of this explains what's happened to the Washington Post or the NY Times (although the latter seems to have recovered somewhat).We've had wingnuts owning the press before--think Hearst, and constraining opinion--think Walter Winchell. Sitting here an debating a "conspiracy" that's part real, part not is a waste of time. Progressives need to do what they did in Heart & Col. McCormick's time--invest, get the message out and come up with a way to force these characters to their job. One significant thing is demographic--a great many of these characters are heading toward retirement; if they don't retire, their bosses will help them do it--they want younger audiences. The "new audience" is part of where the market can work to our advantage. Esp.f they don't flock to Brian Williams, Katie Couris, etc., who are basically dumbed down, blow dried versions of the older guard.