By Steve Hunley

Following the election of Donald Trump it was readily apparent to even the mainstream news media they had not only missed the boat, but weren’t even at the right dock.  The publisher and chief editor of the New York Times assured readers the Grey Lady would “rededicate” herself to what it considered to be its “fundamental mission”, which is to “report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories we bring to you.”  This is a far cry for the folks who believed they set the agenda for the country inside their board room.  It is a big step for the folks who set a narrative and expected reporters to hue to that narrative.  Apparently, the Times editors wanted reporters to outline stories for as long as a year in advance to fit that narrative.

The kindest word one could use in the Times’ coverage of the presidential election is ‘biased’; perhaps ‘unhinged’ is closer to the truth.  The opinions of reporters are not news, nor should those same opinions appear inside an article supposedly relating news.  The fact the editor and publisher of the Times pledged to cover news “honestly” seems an admission they had not covered the presidential election truthfully, but then, few of us believed the coverage of the presidential election by the New York Times was truthful, much less fair.

Most of the mainstream media has learned little or nothing from the presidential debacle nor taken to heart just how few people trust or believe them.  The Huffington Post and Politico are booming stories about Rudy Guiliani’s supposed “conflicts” in serving in president-Elect Trump’s Cabinet for payments he received from foreign governments.  These same media outlets certainly did not think payments or donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation was a conflict of interest for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.  Not even after it was revealed how many donors were whisked into her office while serving as Secretary of State and later just happened to contribute large sums to the Clinton Foundation did the Huffington Post or Politico find it troubling.  To a great many Americans, Clinton’s attitude seemed to be less carelessness than “pay-to-play.” Yet virtually none of the mainstream media chastised Clinton, revoked endorsements and most all but ignored what millions of Americans rightly perceived to be a terrible scandal and certainly a conflict.  Clearly much of the mainstream media continues its self-serving, hypocritical behavior by raising questions about Rudy Guiliani being able to serve in Donald Trump’s Cabinet.  If Rudy Guiliani has too many conflicts to serve in the Trump Cabinet, how in the world did Hillary Clinton not have too many conflicts to serve as President of the United States?

Of course I never believed the coverage of Donald Trump and his administration would receive anything remotely resembling fairness, but after a major rejection by the American people, one would think they would be at least somewhat contrite for what was appalling behavior.  One would think they would at least pretend to be fair.

Now we hear about President Obama’s popularity.  These same people cite the polls indicating Barack Obama is riding a wave of popularity, yet these opinion polls were conducted largely by the same folks who assured us Hillary Clinton would win the presidency in a landslide.  Yet, polls also show the news media in this country has never been held in lower esteem and with good reason.

That poll, I believe.