The media coverage of the presidential race is so tilted to the Democrats that even liberal analysts feel obliged to declare it. USA Today media columnist Michael Wolff asserted that this campaign isn't between Trump and Clinton. It's between Trump and the media that have turned against him in a big way.
During the Republican primaries they were initially bemused, and then they acknowledged Trump as a serious populist challenge to the status quo. Their coverage wasn't positive, but it was voluminous, crowding out everyone else. He hit back, and they let him, marveling at his brass knuckles. The media aimed to drive a serious wedge into the conservative base of the GOP, and they succeeded.
But as Wolff writes, "Now, appalled by their own creation, the media have become, with quite some religious fervor, the defender of truth, justice, morality and proper public behavior, all focused on (Trump's) undoing." As a result, "Clinton will walk into the White House having faced the least amount of scrutiny, criticism and antipathy of any major-party nominee in modern media history."
One could argue that Wolff missed the Barack Obama Swoon of 2008, but there was a big difference. Obama was a presidential rookie with little time on the national stage. There are over 20 years of Clinton in positions of national power (including first lady) to evaluate.
But here we go again. This rerun was entirely predictable. The TV networks are pretending all Clinton scandals are ancient and dreadfully boring. Instead, her experience is presented as an enormous plus compared to that billionaire ruffian.
The media shamelessly proclaim that they are working for a disastrous Trump loss. The New York Times put its own media columnist, Jim Rutenberg, on the front page sounding the battle cry, insisting that Trump is a dangerous demagogue with a deeply racist message and that he must be stopped so the media can stand tall in "history's judgment."
Here's where Wolff goes off the tracks. He asks, "Once Trump is dispatched, how does the media, suddenly realizing they did her work, regard (Clinton)?" Wolff answers his question thusly: "The media seek to claim as much power as they can. In creating Trump and destroying him, they have found a new certainty and authority. This enhanced power and uninhibited sense of outrage and virtue are sure to elect Clinton (and) then, of course, (to) viciously turn on her."
Nonsense. That theory only makes sense if you're Hillary Clinton, who always imagines that the press despises her. If the press really hated her, could she go nine months without a news conference? Obama's been the worst president in history in prosecuting reporters. Has he suffered consequences? They have no "uninhibited sense of outrage and virtue." With Democrats, they abandon any professional self-respect.
Like Team Obama, Hillary & Co. claims she's done hundreds of individual interviews, so who needs a press conference? When left to themselves, liberal journalists can't get beyond pleasantries. But put them together in a room and they might start to feel obligated to ask questions tougher than "How do you feel?" and "What will you eventually tell your grandchildren about today?"
On scandals like her private email server, Clinton keeps unloading major whoppers, like telling the FBI that former Secretary of State Colin Powell told her to set up the private server. Even Powell, who has endorsed Obama twice, is shaking his head at this blame game.
Accountability? Transparency? These aren't watchwords for the left. They are only used as nice-sounding buzzwords to tear Republicans down.
How will they view Clinton if she's elected? As a triumph of "history."
