> Were this true, there should be very strong support for local media among conservatives, but in reality local journalists are attacked with the same fervor as national ones, and conservatives cheer when newsrooms shut down and the journalists are thrown out of work, eg the recent restructuring at Gannett newspapers.

I think folks rationally understand that media is consolidated in the coasts for the same reason everything else is (tech, etc.). Fighting that seems to be tilting at windmills.

My point is slightly different: people might be resigned to big consolidated media entities in New York, but that’s different from accepting how the media puts an unabashedly coastal elitist gloss on everything. This is relatively recent. It wasn’t like that in the 1980s and 1990s. It was the coverage of the 2000 election that catapulted Fox News to the top. (CNN had existed for two decades at that point.)

> This is (no doubt unintentionally) tilting toward the 'great replacement' theory put about about by certain fringe political actors. While they may be very happy to have you articulate it on their behalf, behind your back I'm pretty sure they regard you as part of the problem.

Not at all. People have completely lost the plot about where the center is when it comes to immigration. Globally, almost nobody regards as controversial the idea of controlling immigration to preserve a country’s culture, either by limiting it to allow assimilation, or even preventing it entirely. Countries like Japan are a bit far out in being very resistant to immigration to preserve their unique culture, but it’s their country. Countries like the United States are historically more liberal in that front, but again it’s entirely okay to advocate for maintaining the status quo.

I’m an immigrant to the United States. My mom told me that we were coming to someone else’s country so we had to “do like the Romans do.” And things have been peachy! But I don’t think I had any entitlement or human right to come here, or that there was anything wrong with people expecting me to adopt the local culture rather than trying to change it. That’s completely absurd, and almost nobody in the world thinks that way.

In the country I come from, people would completely flip out if there was as much immigration, especially illegal immigration, as is happening in the United States. And if Bangladeshis were on the verge of becoming an ethnic minority in Bangladesh, political cataclysm would result. (Heck, the country exists because they were sick and tired of being ruled from a far-away capital.) China, Japan, pretty much any country in Africa. Nobody would treat that as anything less than a monumental event. The idea that Europeans are supposed to just be okay with it is some sort of evil gaslighting. (The United States is a bit differently situated, given its history. But say Germany is 80% ethnic German, just like Bangladesh is 95% ethnic Bangladeshi.)

I happen to support moderate immigration into the United States because I think we have had success with it and are really good at assimilating immigrants. (And Latin America is culturally similar enough where the impedance mismatch is not high.) But the left has completely lost its marbles in treating any opposition to immigration (or even total opposition to immigration) as an illegitimate fringe idea as opposed to a policy option. That completely fails to understand what a country is.