I think it's less about the reporting on political figures and more on the harassment/defamation of regular civilians like the Covington High School kids.

And of course all the botched bombshell scoops that are retracted 24 hrs later.

"It's the beginning of the end!"

Here in case you didn't read:

> It is not hard to find examples of how far we have strayed from reporting standards in the Trump era. A simple example is Time Magazine falsely reporting on President Donald J. Trump’s first day in office, stating that he’d removed a statue of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. The news went viral. But the writer did not follow the most basic rule of journalism — pick up the phone and ask the White House if it was really gone, and why? The writer late wrote a correction on his Twitter account, stating “The MLK bust is still in the Oval Office. It was obscured by an agent and door.”

There are numerous examples. Most recently the entire media running with a Buzzfeed story to the tune of "Trump is finished" that Mueller himself disputed, or the stuff about the MAGA hat kids that allegedly surrounded and mocked a Native American peace activist (turns out he had muscled his way into their gathering and was physically intimidating them, but the press ran with a selectively edited video and didn't bother corroborating it). This is stuff that gets widespread coverage before any journalist bothers with due diligence.

I think it's a shame because a free press is one of the only ways to keep the government in check but they are shredding their own credibility, apparently because of personal biases (but who really knows), and the result of that is a government that can rightfully dismiss a lot of what gets reported. How do you recover after "crying wolf" too many times?

That's part of it but I think it goes much deeper than just recent examples like the Covington kids. I can't stand most of cable news because any topic that I know anything about, political or not, I know I'm being lied to through omission of key facts. CNN/MSNBC are especially unwatchable because, like clockwork and for many years now, they bring on several "experts" that magically always champion Democrat's causes but will only bring on few or very weak proponents of any other opposing view. Many media outlets will continually bring out their best champions for something to go up against the absolute worst proponent the other side has to offer. To people who only watch CNN/MSNBC, it will look like Macho Man Randy Savage is constantly beating down Spongebob but that's simply the purposeful illusion they carefully cultivate.

There is also a tendril that reaches into Academia. Free speech on most campuses is dead. The left has seen to that. Kids are being militantly trained to shut down speakers with whom they disagree, simply because they disagree. This empowers the rest of politics because these kids will never let fairness and unbiased reporting happen and the more prestigious the school this happens at, the more likely these students will affect the media in their lifetimes.

> these kids will never let fairness and unbiased reporting happen and the more prestigious the school this happens at, the more likely these students will affect the media in their lifetimes

You're not wrong, but I see that as self-correcting. If the media continues to undermine their credibility, then independent journalism will continue to rise. We're already seeing YouTube creators with bigger followings than any of the traditional media channels. This is a double-edged sword because a lot of these channels don't have the same level of journalistic training that traditional media champions, but training is also a moot point when the traditional actors have abandoned their best practices to chase sensational headlines.

We are rapidly approaching a place where people can choose whatever facts they want to believe because everything is questionable. That is more dangerous to democracy than the so-called fascist president the media is railing against.

When I read this I thought it was sarcastically “proving the point” of the root comment.

MSNBC’s programming in the US evenings is largely opinion/political talk, and isn’t presented as news but as editorial. One can object to opinions, but it is unfair to criticize journalists for op/ed content—just like with newspapers. Very often the journalists personally disagree with opinion/editorial page content, but everyone understands that content isn’t bound by journalism’s standards.

> (turns out he had muscled his way into their gathering and was physically intimidating them, but the press ran with a selectively edited video and didn't bother corroborating it)

Looks like you're running with what their PR firm says[1].

[1] https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2019/01/21/...

Your article says that Nathan Phillips, the activist agrees. There is even a video backing this claim.

What if the PR firm is saying the truth?

But that would be a hard pill for some people to swallow as then they'd have to admit they've been misled and acted badly towards a kid.

The article says that Nathan Phillips agrees that he was physically intimidating a minor?

You're free to split hairs over whether an adult walking up to a kid and beating a drum in his face qualifies as physical intimidation, but I am "running with" my assessment of what the video shows.

Of course it's possible to write about the government shutdown or the border wall from a neutral point of view.

If you can't imagine such a story would possibly portray the current administration in a positive light, then you are not visualizing the story from the other point of view. Imagine allowing the White House to write the story, for instance. Or Fox News. Or the RNC. etc. I'm not saying this is the way the story should be written-- only that it is certainly possible to spin the story either way.

It's the journalist's job to present just the facts, without spin. It's not an easy task, but that's the way it should be.