We can see this going back to the 2000 election when any reporter asking hardball questions of W. Bush was simply kicked off the bus and made to cover events via reading the AP handouts.
Many attribute this to the rise of Rupert Murdock’s Fox network that offered air time to any conservative view and made reporters defensive, lest they are labeled “liberal media”, as CNN found out. It completely turned the tables, where politicians were previously always looking around for a camera or mic they could use to gain face time, it was now reporters who could be controlled by limiting access to candidates. Trump took this so far as to threaten the physical safety of those reporters who didn’t agree with him and what should have disqualified him as a candidate for mayor seemed to resonate with the general frustration of voters with the media.
This was somewhat countered when NBC created MSNBC to give the left a voice to compete with the dominance of Fox, but no one who has the money to establish such a network is that far left, certainly not to the extent of supporting a true progressive in the style of FDR. The massive cost of such endeavors means a balance must be struck between the interests and right to know of voters and the damage done to key advertisers by exposing the role major corporations have played in America’s half-century-long decline into neoliberalism.
This divided view of the world projected into the limited time people have to spend on information has resulted in much of the divide we see among voters in assessing the cause of their growing frustration. This is why any story that extends across the increasingly frequent commercial breaks is now “in-depth reporting”. The limited attention viewers are willing to devote to critical factors shaping their lives is also beneficial to networks in carving out their “niche” markets, as people will give more credibility to those who share their perceptions, regardless of how misinformed they may be.
They are simply not comfortable in having their worldview challenged when a competing source makes them “feel” good about it. The lack of any accountability to the truthfulness of information presented, as well as for decisions of what information to present, has divided America into tribes and pit them against each other with the message that the other “side” is unAmerican and an enemy. Special interests simply have to divide their support between both sides to be assured no harm will come to them. Very few of those supporters of either side would fare well with President Sanders.
