The Elitist Media Are Terrible Guardians of Democracy

Whenever the elitist media come under attack as "fake news" from President Donald Trump, they pretend that this is a battle between the heroic guardians of democracy and this tragically elected authoritarian. They pretend to represent a Civics 101 definition: the press serves to hold all government actors accountable and gives voters the facts they need to make important voting decisions.

Our media don't resemble that picture at all. They routinely fail to hold Democratic Party officials accountable, because they don't want to damage their political standing. They often go overboard in describing the Republican Party as a nasty pack of thoroughly corrupt autocrats, liars, cheaters, morons and hypocrites because they're intensely interested in damaging their political appeal.

Facts aren't stubborn things in their reporting. They're very malleable, carefully manipulated for political effect. Trump's shambolic/hyperbolic communications style makes them lean inevitably into an arrogant assumption that they're for Facts, and Republicans are not. The so-called independent fact checkers follow suit.

This is why there is so little trust in the media. Even the shallowest consumption of their "news" betrays their very politicized and results-oriented approach.

If the media were truly nonpartisan guardians of democracy, both parties would offend their sensibilities. Take the issue of non-citizens voting, which is illegal. Journalists do not approach this as corruption that undermines the honest functioning of democracy. Journalists approach in their reflexive anti-Trump instincts, that it's a phony issue, that it is so "incredibly rare" that it's like it never happens. Shouldn't they support attempts to keep voter rolls honest, so the votes of citizens aren't canceled out? Instead, they suggest it's dangerous that anyone's looking into it.

Consider the case of "Decoy Dan" Sullivan in Alaska, a conspiracy by the Democrats to spoil the chances of Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan by adding a candidate with the same name. Very late in the game, The New York Times published a report underlining that Democrats conspired to find many Dan Sullivans to confuse voters into defeating the incumbent Republican. The Democrats denied reality.

Republicans smelled a partisan dirty trick from the get-go, but it took this long for one elitist media outlet to break the story. Before that, these so-called guardians of democracy didn't take offense. They found it an occasion for levity. There were giggles underneath the story on CNN and MS NOW and NBC, where they replayed their late-night host Jimmy Fallon making comedy out of the dirty trick.

But four years ago, when Florida Republicans put an "Alex Rodriguez" on the ballot to confuse voters against a Democrat state senator named Jose Rodriguez, these same national media outlets repeatedly attacked the "sham candidate." They don't oppose this tactic on every occasion, like a true guardian of democracy. It all depends on which party benefits.

After the Times expose was published, these networks shamelessly suggested this wasn't really offensive, with CNN's Dana Bash leading viewers through the spins that it's "not illegal" and it's "not new," while Trump is trying to "undermine the election." If it's something Republicans could "pounce" on, it's suspicious, regardless of the facts.

Going back half a week, CNN's Bash and CBS's Margaret Brennan hammered Attorney General Todd Blanche on their Sunday shows about the supposed election interference of a lawsuit to allege election fraud if Sullivan lost the election. The scandal was that anyone was offended by Decoy Dan and tried to interfere with the prank.

It's not hard to figure out. The media aren't Guardians of Democracy. They're Guardians of Democrats.

(COMMENT, BELOW)