I have to wonder if the news media had been impartial the last 3 years, would the public perception of the impeachment be any different. It's articles like the one I'm attaching below from CNN that make people numb to real issues involving Trump (beyond the certain cult-like followers that cannot be swayed at all)
Coronavirus Task Force Lacks Diversity
People would've just found another excuse to stand in for the vitriol toward the MSM. The vast majority of Americans cannot even tell opinion from fact, so even if the MSM had not acted in absurd ways over the past few years, I don't believe it would've made any difference.
The MSM has consistently made fools of themselves, and put out some really atrocious reporting, but they've also had plenty of excellent reporting that was deeply sourced and backed up by authentic documents. I'm referring to things like ProPublica investigations, the FOIA work that Jason Leopold has done at Buzzfeed, and the occasional NYT/WaPo story that followed the investigatory/FOIA model instead of today's access journalism model.
But no one really cared to separate the wheat from the chaff. Once the Republican party started going along with Trump when he attacked "the Fake News" -- it gave Republicans carte blanche to tuneout everything critical of Trump's and surround themselves with an echochamber of Fox News, OAN, the Epoch Times, Breitbart, Daily Wire, etc.
Polling consistently shows that independents and Democrats both believe Trump should be impeached. They also show that independents line up across the board in opposition to Trump and his behavior. On every single question, independents are much closer to the Democratic position than the GOP position. The only time that differs is when it comes to actual policy issues or questions of culture and society. In other words, political independents outright agree with Democrats that Trump is corrupt, unfit, and unsuited to hold the office of the Presidency. However, political independents are not in agreement with Democrats when it comes to questions of policy and culture. In sum, political independents see Trump for who he is, but they also see the Democrats' policy platforms as a turnoff and a dealbreaker. But, they'd still remove Trump from office.
GOP voters, however, say they have virtually no opposition to Trump's behavior and activities. If they do, they see it as just a tiny flaw that is far outweighed by what they believe the Trump Presidency has delivered to them. The odd thing about GOP polling is that there are a number of differences in live interview and automated polls. Republican voters seem to back Trump more when speaking to an actual human versus when they can just press keys on their keypads. To me, that indicates that they feel a need to justify their position on Trump when speaking to another human. Thus, when granted anonymity, they feel freer to share their true views. I believe this ties into the entire argument about the media being impartial. The media has never been impartial. Ever.
It's hard for me to hear Republicans say they want unbiased opinion free commentary when they're the whole reason Fox News and the massive GOP pundit echochamber exists. I believe the media serve as an easy scapegoat, and Lord knows they've given more than ample ammunition to be used that way. I see people use the media as their excuse all the time. "Well, I don't really like Trump, but the media is so dishonest!" OK, so? The media is dishonest. You don't like Trump. And? "I now support Trump because the media bias was just too much for me." It's an excuse, IMO.
People are predisposed to being part of a tribe, a group, or a team. When the choices are a Democratic party lurching wildly to the left, with insane economic policies and BS identity politics, or the GOP with a corrupt and unfit Trump, most everyone pick a side. They have to fit in somewhere. Very few people reject both sides. I think criticism of media bias and the media's incompetence is often just a sideshow and an excuse for people to overcome the cognitive dissonance of supporting a grotesque and repugnant man as President.
By no means am I saying that criticism of the media is unfair. I'm sure most of you have seen me criticism the media and Democrats on a regular basis. But, for the majority of people, they've already picked a side. Criticism of the other party and the media is simply a coping strategy to deal with the unease they feel after having made a choice they were very uncertain about. But the pressure to be on a team was too intense to ignore.
So, no, I don't think it would've made any difference in today's hyperpartisan world if the media had done better. There was plenty of well-done news articles out there if someone spent the effort and time to look for them. It's just much easier to eat the White bread with the Coke than get the Wheat with a Diet Coke. Especially if you have to put in any effort to avoid one and consume the other.
:watermark(cdn.texastribune.org/media/watermarks/2020.png,-0,30,0)/static.texastribune.org/media/files/16183186c1c0191b7a82ea3d2d423dd4/Abbott%20and%20Trump%20REUTERS%20TT.jpg)
