Shallowness

I have been highly critical of the main stream media throughout the Obama years. They decided in 2007 that Barack Obama was uniquely qualified for the presidency and began to create a halo around the man. They refused, outright refused, to look at his blemishes, some serious. They rejected claims that he had no executive experience, few real accomplishments, and an ideology that, although it dovetailed nicely with their own, was considerably removed from those of average Americans. They championed him to a victory and then ... they worked very, very hard to protect him as the predictable domestic and foreign policy failures began. They shielded him from scandal after scandal, and culled the news to present his presidency in the best possible light. When a legitimate challenger to Obama appeared in 2012, they worked very hard to demonize the challenger—a good and decent man—to protect their candidate. They succeeded because they had considerable influence over the perceptions of voters, many of whom spend little time looking at the details. That has set the tone for Hillary Clinton candidacy.

Peggy Noonan comments on some of this when she writes about the "shallowness" of many modern journalists:

There is another aspect of this year’s media environment, and it would be wrong not to speak it. It is that the mainstream media appear to have decided Donald Trump is so uniquely a threat to democracy, so appalling as a political figure, such a break with wholesome political tradition, that they are justified in showing, day by day, not only opposition but utter antagonism toward him. That surely has some impact on what Kellyanne Conway calls “undercover Trump voters.” They know what polite people think of them; they know their support carries a social stigma. Last week I saw a CNN daytime anchor fairly levitate with anger as she reported on Mr. Trump; I thought she was going to have an out-of-body experience and start floating over the shiny glass desk. She surely knew she’d pay no price for her shown disdain, and might gain Twitter followers.

Guys, this isn’t helping. Tell the story, ask the questions, trust the people, give it to them straight, report both sides. It’s the most constructive thing you could do right now, when any constructive act comes as a real relief.

In a country whose institutions are in such fragile shape, mainstream media very much among them, it does no good for its members to damage further their own reputations for fairness, probity, judgment. Books will be written about this, though I’m not sure they’ll read them.

Slowly, inexorably, the main stream media is destroying itself. It's doing that by embracing its obvious bias and doing so with some amount of glee. Obviously, if you're a leftist ideologue, you'll rejoice in their bias because it reflects your own positions. But here's something to think about: The vast majority of the country is not composed of leftist ideologues. The vast majority thinks that political correctness, although appropriate in some contexts, has now crossed a line that borders insanity. They're sick of the obvious and arrogant government lies that go unquestioned by the media. They're concerned that so much news that might reflect poorly on the party in power (when that party is the Democrats) goes under- or unreported. And therefore, unconsciously, they listen to the media through a filter.

As government grows ever bigger, ever more corrupt, rapacious, and therefore, dangerous, we need a vibrant, objective media that just might act as a counterbalance. We've lost that and as a consequence, the power elites, exemplified by a Hillary Clinton quietly celebrate.

UPDATE:
-------------------------
There's also a profound shallowness in the coverage of important national issues. John Hinderaker comments:

Donald Trump raced to the front of the GOP pack by focusing on illegal immigration. For months, liberals inside and outside of the press denounced Trump’s immigration views, accusing him of being a bigot, etc. But immigration has now disappeared from the news. In the first Clinton-Trump debate, moderator Leslie Holt never mentioned the subject. Why? Democrats understand that most voters side with Trump.

Likewise with trade. Here, in my opinion, Trump is vulnerable, but the issue is still too risky for the Left. Therefore, the less said the better.

How about our declining military, the Iran deal, Hillary Clinton’s criminal mishandling of classified information, the weakest recovery since WWII, stagnant wages, the war on cops and a suddenly rising crime rate, the Libya fiasco, and Obamacare, a failure by any accounting? Where have all the issues gone? Off the front pages, every one, and so far, out of the debates.

The issues that voters care most about appear to be off the table until the election is safely over. Instead, editors and reporters are feeding us a steady diet of Trump’s tax returns, a reprise of birtherism, and Alicia Machado, a person, evidently, of great significance. You could say she is the Quemoy and Matsu of this election, but that understates the case.

It is obvious what is going on here.

Yes. It is. The Democrats and Hillary are on the wrong side of every one of these issues. They know it and so do their trained hamsters in the media. Best solution? Remove them from any consideration by the voters.