Letters to the Editor: Trump announced, and the media are already failing like it’s 2016
By Scott Whitlock
We’re now down to just one month of this new presidency. And the media are already failing.
The media’s coverage of the first month of Donald Trump’s presidency has been disgraceful. It has demonstrated a profound lack of self-awareness and a profound lack of understanding about the dynamics of government.
From all of the mainstream news organizations, it’s clear there are two camps in this election, with only a few outliers.
The media are divided between those who believe the election is a foregone conclusion and those who think this race is closer than Trump thinks.
From the Washington Post, the Post’s editors have made headlines for their stunning conclusion that Hillary Clinton is unlikely to win. The Post editors made headlines by suggesting — in the Post’s words — that Clinton “has a real shot” of winning the popular vote just like they did for Barack Obama in 2012.
From the New York Times, the Times editors, along with the editor in chief, have consistently and repeatedly written about the “rigged election,” while using the word rigged to describe not only the election but all political campaigns.
From the Huffington Post, along with many other media journalists, it is clear that Trump may well have the edge and is already the nominee of their preferred candidate.
This is not an exclusive problem, nor is it limited to the Internet and social media. The mainstream media have had their hands in all of the major controversies of the past — Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Iraq on steroids, the September 11 terrorist attacks, the 2000 election, the 2004 election, the 2008 election, the 2010 election, the 2012 election, the 2014 election, and now Trump’s election and inauguration.
And it’s not limited to just the political, but all the other races of the past.
To those who think that Clinton is