The Hill’s Joe Concha reports on the media’s reaction to the election of Donald Trump, noting that journalists are now “tripling down on blatant anti-Trump sentiment.” Citing numerous examples, Concha compares the media’s “unhinged” reaction to Trump to “the boy that cried wolf.” He warns his colleagues: “Keep crying enough, and people will stop listening. And from the looks of it, many of the lucid and sane likely already have.”
From The Hill:
Later in the morning after [Trump] was officially declared the winner, we started hearing from various voices in the industry about a need for self-education to glean what lessons were learned. The introspection was a necessary one, after all, only because by all accounts the media — broadcast, print, online and otherwise — got failing grades for its performance.
It was an election season where journalists openly and defiantly declared that objectivity could be thrown out the window in the name of stopping a dangerous candidate. Neutrality was no longer an option. Judgement day was coming for anyone not on the take-out-Trump-train.
Journalistic felonies were discovered far and wide during the campaign season. Stories shared in advance with campaigns. Debate questions shared in advance with campaigns. Outright collusion. Blatant cheerleading. Wikileaks exposed what many suspected about the press all along: they’re operatives, not journalists.
It’s a shame that such a broad brush was painted here across an industry of solid, noble, honest journalists that exist primarily outside of political reporting. But think of it at the 1919 White Sox scandal: Only a few players were involved, but the whole team and sport were stained. And stains like that don’t come off with one washing.
So how’s that introspection by the press going? Are we seeing a more objective, fair, lucid, advocacy-free brand of journalism?
Not on your life, Charlie Brown.
Read the rest here.