And Then They Came For The Media, And I Did Not Speak Up For The Media Because Both Sides Think The Media Sucks

Even though I'm not in journalism, I feel as though my degree in it lends me a certain obligation to monitor the news.  You may thus accuse me of bias, but I think that The Media, which has taken a beating ever since I left college, has gotten a bum rap when it comes to allegations that they didn't do their job during the election campaign.  And I still stand by that.

Have there been missteps?  Yes.  Has it been worse than in previous campaigns or stories?  I guess so.  A lot has been made, in particular, at how shitty the New York Times has been towards Hillary and Bill Clinton ever since they came on to the national stage in 1992.  This falls into a common accusation about campaign coverage: They were assailing Hillary Clinton with these e-mails and the Benghazi scandal (both of which were bullshit) because The Media needed a tight race in order to sell advertisers and make money.

I can see that, mostly because it makes sense.  It's not right; the business logic behind it is the main reason I'm not in journalism.  But it makes sense if a media company wants to stay in business.  However, a lot of people have gone beyond that specific allegation to damn all reporting on Election 2016 as unfair.  Such media-bashing has historically come from Republicans, but increasingly, and based on some kernels of truth (don't all lies have kernels of truth in them, the way a turd has different-colored specks of ... whatever that is in them?), this year I felt that a ton of leftists hammered The Media for both giving Donald Trump hundreds of hours of free publicity without calling him out on all the lies and rude things he said on the campaign trail.

See, I can't completely say that is unfair, but my feelings jibe with that of Eric Black of MinnPost in this piece, where he defends The Media's role in scrutinizing and calling out Trump on his lies.  There is always a danger of promoting someone you're reporting about; it's kind of like Schrodinger's Cat, or maybe I'm using the wrong analogy.  But nevertheless I think that there in fact were journalists doing their job, and knew that Trump was full of shit, and did their damnedest to let everyone know he was, factually, full of shit.  I know, because I was one of those people so informed.  So it strikes me as odd and very sad that people don't believe The Media has been on the ball on this.  So I totally agree with Black when he says:

The point is, if you don’t know that Trump’s issue positions don’t add up, it’s because you don’t care to know, it’s not because “the media” didn’t report it.

But I'm afraid it's too late, not after Trump apparently won the Electoral College.  The unthinkable has happened: A unqualified asshole has been democratically (at least for now; this Russian hacking thing is a little bit beyond my grasp, but hopefully I'll be able to read up on it soon) elected by the people to be our next President.  That has started a round of finger-pointing, and that naturally has orbited around The Media -- from the left for "enabling" Trump, the right because, well, they're still liberal and Trump won despite of them, which is also a crock of shit.

And that's the big danger of blaming The Media.  I am certain that, without a doubt, most reporters out there are trying they're best because all they want to know are the facts and to disseminate the truth to the people.  They are busting their asses to get the whole story, and the story as accurately as possible.  Sometimes they come up short, but oftentimes they get close, and besides, why in the hell are we demanding 100% completeness and truthfulness every single time or else?  This goes beyond the phrase, "Nobody's perfect."  They are correct more times than people on both ends of the political spectrum give them credit for.  So naturally I react harshly when I see people just blame The Media.  It's a hot take without thought or analysis.  It's a lazy talking point.

Over the past several days, both the Washington Post and the New York Times published long, rigorous exposes about how Russia hacked into e-mails from the Democratic campaign, fed them to previous fair-shake observer WikiLeaks, and told them to release them to the public at regular intervals to paint and then reinforce an unflattering picture of Hillary Clinton in order to help Donald Trump win.  (It must be said, though, that there has been a story about this same subject on Esquire since Halloween Eve, and no one, including me, seems to have read it.)  Leftists have naturally bitched, "A little late, don't you think?" but these investigative pieces take time.  But now they're out there, and they should be read by everybody so Americans and people of the world will learn what the hell exactly went on.

But I don't know if that's going to happen because The Media has had such a bad rap.  And since Both Sides don't trust The Media, it'll be easy for people to ignore what actual journalists have to say when something really important crops up -- something like this.  This is like the boy crying wolf, only this time it's the wolf in boy's clothing crying wolf.  Or maybe I'm torturing another analogy.

What I'm saying is is that it's up to us -- to you -- to find the truth about matters important to the health of our country and democracy.  It's out there.  You're just too lazy to find it.  And unfortunately, there are a lot more of you than there are of "us," and therefore you guys win, and on Monday the Electors will officially name Trump President and he'll immediately sell off this country to Russia because he's Vladimir Putin's bitch.