Now that the election is over, a lot of people are saying that the media and polls failed us.
They predicted one thing, but were completely wrong.
However, it wasn't only their predictions of a sweeping Trump loss that were incorrect, but also that their biased, schlock journalism was professionally and ethically wrong!
Over and over again, I read the harshest of criticisms of Donald Trump, especially from the New York Times--endless rantings about him week after week:
From Nicholas Kristof:
- Trump's actions are heinous
- Trump is a misogynist and sexual predator
- Trump is a charlatan
- Trump is a crackpot
- Trump is a shallow egoist who uses people
- Trump is for pariahs like ISIS, North Korea, and KKK
- Trump is mean
- Trump is a liar
- Trump is a racist
From Frank Bruni:
- Trump rants
- Trump makes corrosive conspiracy theories
- Trump is sickening
- Trump and his people are pathetic
- Trump is a narcissist
- Trump is irredeemably sexually perverse
- Trump is crude
- Trump is unfit
- Trump is unpatriotic
- Trump is hot-tempered
Does the New York Times really call this journalism, and do they expect people to pay for this one-sided nonsense?
It used to be we could go to an esteemed newspaper like the New York Times and get real investigative journalism, and a real analytical and balanced approach to issues--we could learn something and be better off for it.
But unfortunately it seems that the New York Times became exactly what it feared the most--it became biased, bigoted, and hateful.
The articles over and over again were full of shameful name-calling, insinuations, and coaxing people that they needed to vote for one candidate over another.
It wasn't just an endorsement before the election, it was a barrage of months of superficial and venomous, hate-filled spew and characterizations by liberal journalists against a conservative party candidate--irrespective of what his true capabilities were and hope that he could bring to reinvigorate this nation.
Of course, candidates should always be condemned for any bias or stupid things they may explicitly or implicitly do or say, but that is an opportunity to set the record and candidate straight, not unilaterally take them out back and shoot them, while giving the other candidate a free ride on corruption, collusion, and lies.
Over time, people saw right through it, and it became clear that the media was absolutely biased, divisive, and trying to fix the election results for one candidate.
The damage to the credibility of the media is done, and before readers renew their next subscriptions, they need to vote with their wallets with the same internal deliberation and soul searching as for their candidate. ;-)
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)