Just how awful is the mainstream media?

[Garrett78]

Earlier I started a thread about how voter suppression (thanks to Shelby County v. Holder) seems to be an underrated factor in the 2016 election. Well, the media deserves more blame, as well. Neil Buchanan, without even writing about the atrocious TV infotainment industry, does a great job of making clear just how awful the print media was during the 2016 campaign:

Neil Buchanan: The Cruel ‘Crooked’ Caricature That Doomed Clinton
By Neil H. Buchanan On 11/11/16 at 6:50 PM

It is impossible to overstate the significance of this year's election. The consequences for America and the world are profound, and we are only beginning to come to grips with what might come next. As we do so, it is important to learn and remember the key lessons from this terrible election campaign.

Unfortunately, liberals and media types are already engaging in the worst kind of post-election recriminations. Suddenly, we are being treated to 20/20 hindsight about Hillary Clinton's supposedly "flawed candidacy," even though the swing of only a few thousand votes in a couple of key states would have resulted in her winning the presidency.

Had she won the electoral vote, of course, there would surely have been no stories about how brilliantly Clinton navigated the treacherous political terrain of 2016, but rather more snark about how she should have done better.

Even the best commentators, like Jim Newell at Slate, immediately defaulted into claims about the awfulness of everyone involved on Clinton's side, writing that "the Democratic establishment has beclowned itself and is finished." To be fair, Newell published his piece at 3:25 a.m. on the 9th, only hours after the awful outcome had become a reality. His piece was more like an extended primal scream than anything else.

But the scariest part of this post-election conversation is how badly it misses the big picture. Republicans (with a big assist from the Supreme Court) have spent the last several decades figuring out how to prevent Democratic-leaning Americans from voting. Maybe that made a difference in, say, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Maybe?

More importantly, as I will discuss at length below, the supposedly liberal press relentlessly repeated the narrative that Clinton was unlikable, untrustworthy and so on. That onslaught of negativity poisoned the campaign in a way that no one could have imagined.

To blame Clinton for losing in such an environment, or to fault her "messaging" and other matters dear to political insiders, is quite frankly insane. It would be like watching a school bully tie a kid's shoelaces together and push her down the stairs, and then criticizing the kid for being clumsy.

Read the rest here.

[Mike Nelson]

1. They should come out and say...

...Trump ran a racist campaign. Her message was inclusion. His was exclusion. The "messaging" was loud and clear... hate did well because, when combined with fear, that's what happens. Still, Hillary's message won - the electoral college and gerrymandering have put our Democratic government on hold.

[That Guy 888]

2. Republicans spent the last several decades perfecting election fraud. When has the Democratic Party-

...opposed election fraud? Maybe "the press" doesn't cover it because the Republicans don't want to acknowledge their crimes, and the Democrats bafflingly don't seem bothered by it. Florida 2000 being the most obvious. The voter suppression cost Gore more votes than Ralph Nader - yet the Democrats in the Senate to a person refused to let any member of Congress testify as to why the Florida vote totals shouldn't be certified. The Democrats vilified Ralph Nader, but seemed fine with Democratic voters being disenfranchised. They tried to do the same thing this election with the Green Party, but look whose fighting election fraud on the Democratic Party's behalf - Jill Stein and the Greens - I really wish I could be surprised that it isn't the Democratic Party fighting back. Maybe the leadership needs to do more fighting and less whining.