Consider the First Amendment of the Constitution. It includes protections for Religion, Speech, The Press, Public Assembly, and Petitioning the Government. The fact The Press gets specific protection despite Speech also being protected (after all, The Press can legitimately be considered a subset of Speech) tells us of the importance the Founding Fathers placed on what many used to call the “fourth branch of government.” Setting aside the fact that, today, the “fourth branch” is the million-tentacled administrative branch of government, this tells us that the Press was considered vital to the functioning of government in a free society.

Indeed, the Press has long been at the fore of rooting out corruption, exposing misdeeds, shining light on skulduggery, and holding politicians accountable for violating the public’s trust.

What are we to make, then, of the total abandonment of that role with regard to the 2016 Presidential election?

It’s painfully obvious that major media outlets have taken sides in this campaign. They’re not even pretending to hide it any more. If you front-page any major news site, you can instantly tell, merely by the tone of the headlines, who they’re pulling for. While they think they can still bluff readers into believing in their objectivity, they are, instead, inflicting major damage to the credibility of the press and to its essential role in our society.

This isn’t new. The press has been bipolar with regard to Presidents Bush and Obama for the duration of their tenures, and the press has, for as long as it has existed, included editorial biases. Like an untreated disease, though, it has been getting worse. Consider the suspiciously prevalent use of the word “dark” to describe Trump’s RNC speech a few weeks ago. Consider the current suspiciously prevalent description of Trump’s campaign as “desperate” in response to his calling the press out on its bias. Consider CNN’s continued hagiographic treatment of Clinton (and if you don’t believe me, just check its web page from time to time). It’s so bad that even The Economist, considered by many to be a bit more reliable and “above the muck,” has thrown its lot in with Clinton.

Without doubt, Trump has gotten a raw deal from the press. Does this mean that Trump is actually a great candidate, that he’s the nation’s savior? Hardly. We don’t need the press’s biased filters to figure Trump out. The sound bites themselves tell the story, as do some of his policy ideas. I don’t think he’s the deranged maniac he’s being portrayed as, but I do think he is thin-skinned and reactionary, both bad things for a President. But, more vitally, I think his nativism, his authoritarian bent, and his protectionist ideas on trade are terrible. As I’ve noted before, I’m voting for Gary Johnson.

If various news outlets agree with my assessment and throw in with Clinton, why would I have cause to complain, you might wonder. Apart from the fact that I find the prospect of a Clinton presidency as or more loathsome, the press’s overt bias creates problems both immediate and long-term.

The immediate is pretty obvious. Not only can we no longer rely on the press for accurate information, we have plunged eyebrows-deep into confirmation bias. Clinton’s supporters can continue to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and Trump’s supporters can continue to dismiss anything negative said about him as being fatally tendentious. The blame for the nation’s polarization over this election can be laid squarely at the feet of the press.

Worse are the long-term implications. Without a watchful and critical press, politicians of the “favored” party have free rein. They can run amok, knowing full well that they’ll not only not be outed, but will receive protection and blind eyes. What reason would a President Clinton have not to engage in further shenanigans? She’ll be invulnerable, with a sycophantic press excusing every further violation of the public trust. Oh, and if you’re among those who think that all the alleged improprieties are merely a vast right wing conspiracy? Please. Do grow up.

Without a Fourth Estate, without a press corps dedicated to its job as the primary challenger of government, the nation will be governed without restraint. Government will run amok. Corruption, the most corrosive destroyer of nations, will become the norm, and people will increasingly shrug it off. Already, we witness “Clinton fatigue.” The latest allegations concerning play-for-pay at the Clinton Foundation should shock our sensibilities, but when we’ve grown so inured to a steady stream of scandals associated with the name “Clinton” that we either figure it’s business as usual or figure that nothing will come of the latest, we’ve given up on government accountability entirely.

That is the greatest peril of the press’s Clinton cheerleading. If you’re among those who embraces that cheerleading, and is happy that the press is all-in on her behalf because Trump is such a nightmare, realize that you’re abetting the nation’s self-destruction.

Want to support Clinton? Fine. That’s your choice. Realize, though, that if your support is blind, that if you don’t demand accountability, that if you’re OK with her not even acknowledging her past wrong-doing, you’re giving her absolutely no reason to behave better in the future. And, if you don’t demand that the press do its job, you’re in essence telling the government “I’m going to stick my head in the sand and trust that you won’t do bad things to me.”

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.