America’s liberal media (a.k.a. the ‘mainstream’ media) are bridled by an engrained, unavoidable conflict of interest. It is exemplified in their having voted, in nearly their entirety, for President Obama in 2008 and again in 2012. Indeed, the Center for Responsive Politics has documented a decades-long trend of liberal voting patterns, as well as financial support, among influential members of the journalistic community. The liberal media even went so far as to campaign on candidate Obama’s behalf by exhibiting a preference for him over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democrat primaries, over John McCain in that year’s general election, and over Mitt Romney in 2012.
It is basic psychology that when Americans support a presidential candidate, we are, in essence, investing in that person. Some of us actually invest our money by way of campaign contributions; many of us invest our trust, hope and belief in America’s future, in other words, an important part of ourselves, by how we cast our ballots.
When those in our news media invest – personally and professionally – in a politician, said investment defies the later application of common sense in assessing its own soundness. It also corrupts something essential to a vibrant democracy, namely citizen access to the fair and independent presentation of news and information. It is no great surprise, for example, when liberal media institutions refuse to vigorously cover the IRS, VA or Benghazi scandals; when they avoid critiquing Mr. Obama’s policies with skepticism; or when they seem incapable of reporting on him with objectivity, much less the outright antagonism they showed toward his predecessor, George W. Bush (for whom they did not vote).
This is an important part of why the liberal media are incapable of covering Obama properly. They want and need him to succeed, and so, they advocate on his behalf. They’re ground floor investors. He’s their GM – too big to fail. Most everything else, including the health of our democracy, is negotiable.