Beldin,
Ironically, if Hillary had run an honest campaign against Bernie Sanders, she might have been seen in a better light and won the election. She certainly wouldn't have alienated the Sanders' supporters the way she did.
And, if the mainstream media had reported fairly on the candidates, people might have believed them on some of the ways in which Hillary Clinton was a better choice than Trump. They may have voted differently. But, that didn't happen. It became clear long ago that the media was so extraordinary and universally BIASED, that nothing they said about Donald Trump stuck. Not even the things that were true.
Ironically, in their unending attempt to assassinate Trump's character, the media actually insulated him from the worst of the accusations. Everybody quickly deduced that the media can't be trusted. It was lying. Everybody knew it. When it had something really devastating on Trump (that recording was pretty bad), most people refused to believe it or let it slide into the muck of other criticisms that were mostly known to be false. They'd gone numb.
When the media continues its practice and further lambastes our new President in the future, most people won't pay attention. Oh, assuredly, the liberals will pay attention. But they would hate Trump no matter if he were Jesus Christ, Gandhi and Buddha all rolled into one. Nobody else is going to care about Press criticism, though. Not unless President Trump does something REALLY bad and is caught red-handed. Hopefully, he's smarter than that. He's been granted a wonderful opportunity.
I suspect that the New York Times has figured this out. Its recent vow to return to telling the truth is more than just an admission that it hasn't been doing so. It's also an admission that it must start telling the truth since, if it doesn't, no one is going to care what it has to say about anything. For a newspaper, even a left-wing, propagandist hit piece published in New York City, that means the end.
| 
