It sure seems that there is group think in the New York/Washington axis of our media overlords.
I would love to know what they have told Lester Holt to do.
It strikes me as odd how hard the liberals came down on Matt Lauer. Rather than address how poorly Hillary performed in that forum, rather than discuss the shortcomings of their candidate, the liberals decided that Matt Lauer didn’t work hard enough to bring down Trump.
Can I ask a stupid question?
How is it the job of the media to take sides in political campaigns??? Aren’t they supposed to report and let us decide????
It is actually very unclear what the job of the media is today.
I think most of us would prefer they stick to reporting facts and present opinions in separate opinion pieces.
I think most of us would prefer that “journalists” state their biases upfront rather than trying to pretend to be objective.
But, if the media chooses the road of deception and bias hiding behind claims of objectivity then they shouldn’t complain if viewers tune them out, refuse to support their advertisers, and blast away at them at forums like this one.
I remember seeing Ben Bradlee (Washington Post editor) interviewed on CSPAN years ago—Ben said the job of journalists was to support the underdog (I think he used the word “afflicted”) and to attack those who victimize them.
That sounds like a somewhat reasonable view until you ask a couple of simple questions: Who gave reporters the right to determine who was afflicted and who was victimizing who?
What happens when they get it wrong because they didn’t investigate all the facts? What happens if their sources are lying to them? What happens when they want access to sources and can’t publish the truth for fear of losing that access?
I would argue that at this point in our history the average American is the afflicted and the mass media are abusing us.
Who will cover that story?
(That is _our_ job, here, and we are the real journalists today.)