Much has already been written, and more will be, about the establishment's loss of touch with the typical American. I take most of it to mean the political establishment. I say the following as someone who voted for neither Trump nor Clinton.
At one point last night after it appeared Trump would do better than expected (but long before it was clear he would win), my wife, who is an avid reader of the New York Times, looked at me and said 'how could everyone be so off?' My response was that the pillars of the media are similarly out of touch with most Americans.
I hope that the media will use this election and its results as a time for serious reflection. When I say "media," I mean publications and channels such as the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, and the main networks. Media outlets that at least pretend to cover the news rather than influence it. (I don't include Fox News or MSNBC--they are the same thing, catering to their respective audiences.)
Eight years ago, we elected a candidate with virtually no scrutiny applied to his record and personal history. The media, as I discuss them here, were busy chasing whatever Palin embarrassment they could find. (She was embarrassing enough on her own.) Four years ago, they, among other things, improperly influenced a Presidential debate and strongly criticized Mitt Romney for presaging Russian geopolitical adventurism.
This year, the media have excoriated Donald Trump. Most of it has been justified, though some has not been. Meanwhile, the media ignored for as long as possible, and then downplayed, significant and consistent ethical failings on the part of Hillary Clinton. It appears clear to me that the media played more of the role of cheerleader rather than interrogator.
My guess is that, if you surveyed the newsroom at the New York Times, you'd find less than 10% of the people identify as anything other than "progressives," meaning left-wing Democrats. I am confident the same is true at the Washington Post, CNN, etc. Inherent in that viewpoint one-sidedness is that perspectives held by at least half of the nation are wholly unrepresented. Sometimes that manifests in outright bias, but far more often, it manifests in what gets covered at all and in subtle, likely unintentional, framing of coverage.
There can be little question that the media is and should be embarrassed by its coverage of the election and, in particular, its prognostications going into yesterday. My hope is that the media uses that embarrassment as an opportunity to evaluate how it formulates its news teams and editorial decisions.
What say you, faithful OBers?
At one point last night after it appeared Trump would do better than expected (but long before it was clear he would win), my wife, who is an avid reader of the New York Times, looked at me and said 'how could everyone be so off?' My response was that the pillars of the media are similarly out of touch with most Americans.
I hope that the media will use this election and its results as a time for serious reflection. When I say "media," I mean publications and channels such as the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, and the main networks. Media outlets that at least pretend to cover the news rather than influence it. (I don't include Fox News or MSNBC--they are the same thing, catering to their respective audiences.)
Eight years ago, we elected a candidate with virtually no scrutiny applied to his record and personal history. The media, as I discuss them here, were busy chasing whatever Palin embarrassment they could find. (She was embarrassing enough on her own.) Four years ago, they, among other things, improperly influenced a Presidential debate and strongly criticized Mitt Romney for presaging Russian geopolitical adventurism.
This year, the media have excoriated Donald Trump. Most of it has been justified, though some has not been. Meanwhile, the media ignored for as long as possible, and then downplayed, significant and consistent ethical failings on the part of Hillary Clinton. It appears clear to me that the media played more of the role of cheerleader rather than interrogator.
My guess is that, if you surveyed the newsroom at the New York Times, you'd find less than 10% of the people identify as anything other than "progressives," meaning left-wing Democrats. I am confident the same is true at the Washington Post, CNN, etc. Inherent in that viewpoint one-sidedness is that perspectives held by at least half of the nation are wholly unrepresented. Sometimes that manifests in outright bias, but far more often, it manifests in what gets covered at all and in subtle, likely unintentional, framing of coverage.
There can be little question that the media is and should be embarrassed by its coverage of the election and, in particular, its prognostications going into yesterday. My hope is that the media uses that embarrassment as an opportunity to evaluate how it formulates its news teams and editorial decisions.
What say you, faithful OBers?
