On Tuesday we reposted a column by Tim Graham which outlined the public’s heading toward zero confidence in the press.
Barely one in five– 22%–give the press a grade of “A” or “B,” while almost 4 in ten–38%–give the press an “F.”
I also wrote yesterday about a brilliantly fair-minded analysis by the New York Times’ Public Editor in which Liz Spayd challenged her own newspaper, using the irate responses from readers as leverage. In a nutshell, (a) even Clinton supporters did not believe the Times’ campaign coverage “fairly cover[ed] people across the spectrum,” and (b) were irate at being spoon-fed a steady diet of Hillary Clinton-cannot-lose stories.
So, collectively the public’s belief that the press in totality plays favorites and a backlash from at least some New York Times readers ought to generate contrition, right?
Of course not. Just the opposite. They double-down.
Here’s the headline to Chris Cillizza’s Washington Post column: “Journalists shouldn’t try to win a popularity contest with Trump.”
In English that means no matter how many people, including his former editor Spayd, ask for self-reflection and maybe just a hint of modesty, Cillizza stands for the proposition that all-out, permanent opposition to President-elect Trump is a badge of honor, indeed an obligation, for all right-thinking journalists.
(This reminds me of something I meant to write about before and will mention ever-so-briefly here. There is a syndrome out there whose symptoms are the following.
(When someone (often a columnist) goes crazy, spewing vitriol at every turn, it is not his or her responsibility for his ugly behavior but rather Trump’s fault for being so bad that he brings out the worst in the columnist.
(It’s a variation of the old adage where after the guy murders his parents, he asks the court for mercy because he’s an orphan.)
Why is the public’s confidence in the press sinking faster than a torpedoed ship? “The profession was never held in high public esteem,” Cillizza says, apropos of nothing. “And the recent decline in approval is due entirely to Trump’s daily bashing.”
This is the walled-off world people like Cillizza live in. Remember, he’s already told us he’d read Spayd’s column and yet he can still say something that is transparently false.
By the way, did he not read a poll conducted for USA Today that came out two weeks before the election that found (to quote USA Today’s Susan Page and Karina Shedrofsky)“By nearly 10-1, all those surveyed say the news media, including major newspapers and TV stations, would like to see Clinton rather than Trump elected.”
Over the last few days, Mr. Trump has met with representatives of most of the leading media outlets. Rest assured that he is much, much too smart to believe for five minutes they will ever lower their guns.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.