"But what else can the mainstream press do? After having predicted the end of democracy and the rise of “fascism” should Trump be elected, or reelected, they have a vested interest in proving themselves right."
"Shortly after the election, Vanity Fair published a story that led with this admonition to the press: “Every outrage and insult can’t be a five-alarm fire, as it’s critical for the media to stay focused on the most serious threats to America’s democratic institutions.”
"Former New York Times editor Jill Abramson cautioned her colleagues to “watch and restrain headlines on stories that are needlessly hyperbolic or over-the-top negative.”
"Brian McGory, former Boston Globe editor, said it’s “time to cover his actions and policies, his successes and his failures. To do it through as conventional a lens as possible, while not normalizing mayhem, and a willingness to acknowledge when things go well.”
"But instead of heeding this advice, the mainstream press went right back to its frantic Trump-hating roots.
"News stories assume the absolute worst about Trump. Reporters run with thinly sourced stories to attack him. They freak out about everything he says. Stoke panic at every turn. Endlessly predict doom and gloom. Play up astroturf protests. And studiously ignore whatever successes Trump does achieve. When context is needed, it’s ignored.
"This makes it all but impossible for the average American to know what they can trust, or when there actually is something to be concerned about. When everything is a crisis, nothing is.
"When rogue federal judges started routinely issuing universal injunctions against Trump executive orders, a practice that is legally suspect and was extremely rare until Trump showed up, the story wasn’t how these judges wildly overstepped their bounds, it’s that Trump was creating a “constitutional crisis.' ” . . .


