The presidential election slog will soon be over and the biggest loser could be journalism. Even though TV ratings have been through the roof, the media’s credibility has plummeted.
A dramatic contest featuring two scandal-plagued candidates, the presidential election has Americans clamoring for news. With only a few days before the end though, the electorate is left with unanswered questions and serious doubts about the trustworthiness of the media.
The majority of Americans believe that the Fourth Estate gave the Democratic nominee an unfair advantage. A new Gallup Poll shows that 52 percent of registered voters believe that the media is “biased in favor of Hillary Clinton.” On the flip side, only 8 percent of the electorate believed that Donald Trump enjoyed more favorable coverage.
Complaining about the mainstream media has been a favorite pastime of conservatives. But this time, the narrative about biased coverage isn’t driven by talk radio. It’s the numbers.
Analysis of coverage from the nation’s major outlet shows that Clinton gets better press. The group Data Face analyzed more than 20,000 articles from eight publications ranging on the ideological spectrum from the New York Times to Fox News.
Their report shows that liberal outlets were more favorable to Clinton and even conservative publications seemed to straddle the fence about Trump.
That could be the result of the New York businessman’s shady background. While writing about real estate and sex scandals, the coverage will understandably be more negative. But there’s an honest case to be made that the media hasn’t applied the same level of scrutiny to Clinton’s background.
Questions abound about her health, the Clinton Foundation’s dealings and her time at the State Department. The press arguably didn’t make enough of an effort to get them answered and instead let Clinton go 275 days without holding a single press conference.
There’s been some excellent coverage from reporters like Andrew Kaczynski who’ve sacrificed thousands of hours of their life scouring the records of both candidates. His team unearthed dirt on both candidates and filled the role of political referees.
Others haven’t done their profession or the public any favors, as the Washington Examiner‘s Tim Carney has pointed out.
So far, anonymous hackers have done much more than bylined journalists to pull back the curtain on Clinton. The country got its most meaningful look at Clinton’s campaign machine as a result of emails released by WikiLeaks. Out in the open, the press had no choice but to cover them. But if some journalists had their way, that wouldn’t have even been possible.
If Vox editor Matt Yglesias had his way, that wouldn’t have been possible. The liberal writer actually argued against transparency, saying that politicians shouldn’t be required to preserve their digital correspondence for posterity.
It’s no wonder that the American public doubts the credibility of the media after comments like that. But it’s about more than just the reputation of the press. If media watchdogs didn’t call out Clinton on the campaign trail when she was just talking, what will they do when she’s making policy?
Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
