One of the good things about a rabidly anti-Trump press, is that if any Trump officials DID try something crooked, the press would be all over them the next day.
What I didn't like was the absolute fawning the so-called watchdogs did for Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. THAT'S where they fail. I could handle the incessant drumbeat against Trump, if only they had the same zeal against Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, Nadler, AOC, Waters, et. al.
Agreed!
We have to wonder: How can 90% of “the press” favor the Democrat Party? It doesn’t make sense economically for 90% of “the press” to share the revenue from 50% of the population. That situation appears to have worked out well for Hannity so far, though he may have to spend more to air his show than do the Democrat partisan show.
Yes, we've always had partisan papers. But the difference today is that instead of declaring their partisanship openly, papers -- and media in general -- operate under the rubric of being "objective." That's the Big Lie. As a consumer of news I like to hear both sides of issues in a forthright way, not cloaked in phony neutrality.
I'd add that with the advent of electronic media a new personal element has been added to news reporting. When reassuring personalities like Cronkite with his soothing avuncular manner enter people's living rooms, viewers can be easily swayed -- especially when only one side of issues is highlighted in positive terms.