I’ve given up on the idea we can actually have an independent and unbiased news and entertainment industry where facts are checked before stories are released, where news, rather than opinion, is reported and polling serves no useful purpose for 98% of the stories.
Everywhere I turn there is some accusation of President Trump's behavior, mental competence, executive orders, or comb over. There has sprung up a whole industry dedicated to resisting, inciting violence, or advocating for political overthrow of the administration. In fact, some of the more frantic and extremist of the public figures have actually solicited assassination. This got me to thinking, which is better for the country, a complacent and complicit media or an openly hostile one?
The more I consider the two options, I think I prefer a hostile media. It does serve as a check to the execution of power, although they do so at great risk to their credibility when they move from simple reporting to the full-fledged hysteria we see in so many reports these days.
As we’ve seen in previous administrations, when the media is viewed as little more than a public information arm of the President, the top administrative officials are allowed to target individuals, and exploit the powers of the state, with very little risk, in their attempt to destroy political opposition.
The biggest problem I see is described in Aesop’s fable: The boy who cried wolf. When the press and entertainment segments choose to identify with only one party, and their reporting reaches hysterical pitch on even the most routine of presidential actions, then when it is really something to get excited about, the average citizen will yawn and turn on “Dancing with the Stars.”