We didn't need a 60 Minutes article or a (second?) Vogue cover to convince us that the media was strongly supporting Vice President Kamala Harris in this election. Keep in mind that the fiction that they are “independent journalists” is that probably no one believes it.
That's fine. This is about politics and governance, not media bias.
If Harris wins, the media will be able to congratulate itself on cooperating. There's nothing wrong with that. Different people participate in the square in different ways. Some people run for office, some support think tanks, and some go into journalism. Many of us are activists in some way.
But if she loses, much of the media will lead a chorus of voices trying to explain how such a “tragedy” could happen in this country. Their reflections include whether America really wants a dictator, whether the Electoral College should be replaced, or whether the “deplorables” are too stupid to elect Harris. There is a high possibility that
Below is my message to mainstream journalists. If you fall into this category, print this out now and put it in an envelope marked “Open on November 6th if Harris loses.” Here it is:
In other words, blame yourself.
I know it seems counterintuitive that you've worked so hard to help the Harris campaign and you let her lose. But in doing so, you are so extreme and painfully obvious as to undermine your own credibility in wide swaths of the country. At least half of America automatically assumes that anything you report is not accurate.
After all, you tried to convince everyone that Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian hoax. It wasn't.
You misleadingly and intentionally suggested that President Trump intentionally destroyed the January 6th call record, which he did not.
You've suggested multiple times that President Trump called the neo-Nazi protesters in Charlottesville “good people.” He didn't and in fact blamed them.
You have repeatedly tried to convince people that Trump has openly promised to be a “dictator from day one.” he said:for a day”
You have perpetuated the myth that Trump promised “bloodshed” if he did not win the election. He was clearly referring to the impact on the US auto industry if the Biden-Harris policy continues.
Do you see a trend here? Everyone else is too. Or at least people outside of editorial staff meetings, faculty conference rooms, and dinners in Washington.
take Recent stories NBC reported that President Trump is “escalating” his attacks on his critics. The article, presented as a news article rather than an opinion piece, compares President Trump to President Vladimir Putin, suggests he wants to criminalize political speech, and even mentions “an expert who studies authoritarianism and fascism.” It follows a pattern that is now outdated. In some cases, references to Hitler have become mandatory.
The purpose of this work was very simple. The idea is to scare people that if President Trump were to become president again, he would jail all of his political opponents, suspend the First Amendment, and install an oppressive dictatorship. As usual, it's not revealed how he does this, but there it is.
The immediate thought for about half of the people in this country is that Trump is already president. Hillary Clinton didn't go to jail. The First Amendment was not abolished or even diminished. And now the democracy that Trump seems to despise so much has just voted to give him another term.
Perhaps the problem is that people see the world the way you see it, and that doesn't quite match the story you're trying to sell.
I have no objection to the media picking favorites. It's a long tradition in this country. In fact, the idea of ”unbiased” media was (in retrospect) a short-lived experiment after World War II. fairness principle (1948-1987, God bless you). Media is always biased and there's nothing wrong with that.
But our country is no good when the media refuses to acknowledge its own biases, favors one side of the political spectrum, and allows its view of the truth to be distorted by hatred of particular candidates and parties.
years ago the study It turns out that only about one-third of Americans trust the media. Only 7% had the utmost confidence. That's bad enough. Even worse, among Republicans, the rate was just 14%. Independents accounted for 27%.
To put that into perspective, it's not much better than before parliamentary approval rating At the same time.
You want to talk about threats to democracy? A media completely lacking the trust of the broader public is probably a greater threat than anything President Trump could do in a second term.
There will come a time when we all need to be able to trust the media again to tell us what is actually true. We need the media to be a trusted part of the checks and balances of our republic. So far you have failed in that regard. COVID-19 has given us insight into what can happen when it collapses. It could get even worse in the future.
mick mulvaney He is a former member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and a NewsNation contributor. Under President Donald Trump, he served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and White House Chief of Staff.
