Good news: Americans are no longer listening to mass media | Eastern North Carolina Now

David Harsanyi, writing at the Washington Examiner writes:

If the 2024 presidential contest proved anything, it’s that the mass media no longer drive the national conversation. They can no longer stoke fear and outrage in average voters. They can no longer prop up terrible candidates. And, like him or not, President-elect Donald Trump’s success with black, Hispanic, and Jewish voters, if exit polls are even close to correct, proves that the entire “fascist” scare was a flop.

Indeed, the establishment press are less trusted than virtually any major institution in American life. It is a well-earned ignominy. It’s also a tragedy for a free nation that we have a barely functioning press. Reporters probably tell themselves they’re disliked because they’re fearless truth-tellers. But, far more likely, it’s a referendum on their deceit.

There was never a reckoning for the Russia collusion hysteria that enveloped the nation or the concerted effort to censor and gaslight us on the Hunter Biden laptop story. There will be no reckoning for spending years fearmongering about the coming Nazism, either.

Recall, as well, how we got here. Most of the media had spent four years covering up President Joe Biden’s mental and physical decay by the time the first presidential debate rolled around. It was perhaps the most stage-managed presidency in history, and not one reporter with access to the White House, outside of Fox News, thought it important enough to let us know that the commander in chief could barely function. This, far more than another pedantic fact-check of Trump hyperbole, is why we need journalists.

When the Wall Street Journal finally ran a well-sourced piece detailing Biden’s slippage, the paper was widely assailed by left media, which feigned deep concern about the veracity of the sourcing on the story. These are the same people, incidentally, who treat anonymously sourced Atlantic hit pieces as incontestable truth.

Indeed, those who shared a video of Biden puttering around aimlessly were accused of spreading conspiracy theories themselves. When Biden’s fragile mental state could no longer be hidden, the political press immediately, and without any explanation, turned their focus to elbowing out the president and installing Vice President Kamala Harris. That’s not just bias — it’s corrupt.

Then came “Kamalot,” the shameless, sycophantic, contrived campaign to persuade voters that a woefully inadequate candidate, one who had never won a primary contest, was actually a generational political talent. She went a month without giving a genuine interview or offering as much as extemporaneous comment. In a properly functioning liberal democracy, the press would never have stood for it.

When Harris finally began unleashing her swirling platitude-ridden sentences, it became clear she was in over her head. Once-respected institutions such as 60 Minutes threw away what was left of their reputation, splicing one of Harris’s disjointed ramblings into a coherent answer. CBS News has yet to release the transcript of her interview. The rationalization, no doubt, was saving democracy.

It’s true, as journalists like to point out, that many consumers of news confuse opinion journalism and straight reporting. To be fair to consumers, it’s often impossible to tell the difference. But done right, opinion journalism offers context, sparks debates, and provides intellectual fodder.

Most quarters of the media, though, not only refuse to debate but won’t concede that there is a debate. Most days, there isn’t a single person on MSNBC or NBC News or ABC News or CBS News or on any of the editorial pages of most of the biggest newspapers in the country who can articulate positions held by half the country, much less agree with any of them. And, no, stacking your panels with Trump-hating former conservatives who champion every left-policy position imaginable doesn’t count. The zeal of the liberal convert isn’t really serving anyone.

And, as Hugh Hewitt noted before quitting the Washington Post, “We are news people, even though we have opinions, and we have to report the whole story if we bring up part of the story.” How often does that happen anymore?

On election night, I watched MSNBC’s Joy Reid, Chris Hayes, and Rachel Maddow processing the loss to Trump. These were the people anchoring news coverage. Really, a satirist would struggle to replicate some of the astounding crackpottery I heard. Reid, as an example, uses the word “fascist” with the frequency a normal person might use pronouns. (Though, judging from her rants, it’s exceptionally unlikely she could coherently define it.)

There is a preternatural lack of self-awareness in much of the established media. I don’t mean that they aren’t smart. I mean that they are incurious about the perspective of others and make zero effort to present their opponent’s case fairly, if at all. I doubt anyone on MSNBC has heard a pro-life argument in a decade.

Not once, for instance, did anyone on that MSNBC panel ever bring up the possible downside of recklessly accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being a “fascist.” Rather, they just kept wondering how all these Americans could vote for Hitler.

In many ways, these panics undermine the Left’s ability to offer useful or nonfiction critiques of Trump and his policies. I’m not sure how the media can extricate themselves from this hysterism. If you spend eight years treating every event like the Reichstag fire, it’s going to be difficult to switch gears and talk about the efficacy of a lower corporate tax rate.

Even the day after Harris’s defeat, cable news panels were devolving into struggle sessions and group therapy. Many regulars were again blaming dis- and misinformation. And, yes, Russian interference. People like John Heilemann, who’s allegedly a dispassionate observer of national politics, could not comprehend why anyone would vote against Harris. Maybe talk to someone outside your hermetically sealed ideological biodome.

It’s almost surely going to get worse before it gets better. The presence of Trump, in fact, promises higher ratings at these outlets. All the incentives, ideological and fiscal, are wrong. The entire media structure is larded up with former and future Democratic activists. The most influential journalism professors preach against open discourse. The editorial boards have meltdowns if their paper fails to endorse a candidate. The younger staff members are triggered by the mere shadow of a differing opinion. There are talented writers and reporters out there, but they are rarely valued. Rewards come to those who tell their audiences exactly what they want to hear, turned up to 11.

With every debacle, the institution gets worse. There is more insufferable self-glorification. More priggishness. More smugness. A bigger unearned sense of moral superiority. It’s exceedingly doubtful much will change.

On the bright side, though, most people have stopped listening.