One of the purposes of my original response, which I will spell out since it seems to have been missed, was to highlight how negative statements with regard to Conservatives come in for nearly-identical criticisms regardless of their source. These sources are often conflated into a single label of “Mainstream Media,” “Elitist Establishment,” or some other such term. I disagree that these sources should be seen as a single, unitary enemy for the Right as it encourages paranoia and irrationality among its’ members.
Your off-handed dismissal of The Economist as “Free Market Liberal” provides another example of this exact phenomenon. The Economist is not evilly coordinating its’ condemnation of Trump with other news outlets, especially since it has some pretty significant disagreements with Liberalism as it is practiced in the US. Their version of Liberalism is older and far less interested in government spending programs than the Democratic Party’s version, and it shows in their reporting.
I don’t know if you read The Economist, though your lack of any “valid and factual example” of The Economist’s collusion regarding Trump leads me to suspect that you do not. Regardless, I think it does a disservice to both them and to your own movement to discard their opinions simply because they do not meet the requirements to be accepted as valid by the “Conservative Checklist” for media. They and other media outlets deserve praise or criticism based upon their individual merits. As we discussed, I see the news produced by the major TV networks as lacking merit, but that doesn’t stop me from thinking of them as individual sources of information rather than as some amorphous blob of Establishment News.
It couldn’t hurt to show at least a little nuance on this, could it?