The media doth protest too much, methinks

(With apologies for the headline to William Shakespeare, of course!)

I've been rather baffled by the frenzied attempts on the part of the mainstream media over the past week to portray Mitt Romney's campaign as doomed, President Obama's victory in November's elections as all but guaranteed, and its astonishing refusal to focus on the utter collapse of the President's foreign policy in the Islamic world.  It's so blatant, so obsessive-compulsive, that it sets a new low, even by the already in-the-political-gutter standards of the media in the United States.

Why are they doing this?  How is it possible they can actually believe they'll get away with it?  Do they really think people are relying solely on them for their information, rather than accessing other resources across the Internet?  I suppose the answer is actually "Yes" to all of those questions . . . which is astonishing in itself.

Business Insider published this fascinating graph yesterday that sums up the declining influence of the mainstream media in America.  I've reduced its size for display here.

Business Insider notes:

Thanks to the precipitous decline in the last ~7 years, the industry is now back to where we it was in 1950. And it's only slightly better off when you factor in online revenue.

Journalism professor Jay Rosen of NYU observes that the peak year was the one in which blogging software first appeared.

There's more at the link.  Bold print is my emphasis.

Advertisers think in dollar terms.  For every buck they spend, they want the maximum possible return - and they're clearly no longer getting that return from 'traditional' news media.  If the advertisers know that people are no longer getting their consumer information from those media, then what makes those media think that people are still getting their news and political 'indoctrination' from them?  I was particularly struck by the implied impact of blogging (to which, of course, must be added other social media that have developed since then - LiveJournal, Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, and so on).  I know I turn to such media, and to the Drudge Report, for quick information far more than I do to traditional news sites.  The same can be said of many people I know.

Blogger 'Datechguy' has put up a very interesting article titled 'Demoralized as Hell, The poll the media isn’t talking about edition'.  In it, he analyzes Rasmussen's Summary of Party Affiliation, and finds that if historical trends are repeated this year, President Obama's campaign is in real trouble.  However, he points out that none of the mainstream media are paying any attention to this reality - in fact, it looks rather as if they're deliberately, studiously ignoring it.  It's almost as if they believe that if they don't report it, it will cease to exist.

Many media outlets have descended so low as to make up stories out of whole cloth to favor their political allies and denigrate their opponents.  Sometimes the results are farcical.  As Ed Morrisey commented yesterday:

"It’s not often that I laugh out loud while reading my e-mail ... but today’s entries left me no choice.  No less than three media outlets have scoops about the Mitt Romney campaign this morning that describe changes in strategy and direction.  The only problem is that all three contradict each other despite having come from sources inside the campaign."

Dorothy Rabinowitz pointed out in the Wall Street Journal:

By the time the presidential campaign had ended four years ago, the media's role in driving the outcome had become a fact too obvious to dispute. The impact of the journalistic horde's devotion to the Democratic candidates was clear, the evidence vivid—especially in the case of reporters transported to a state of ecstasy over candidate Obama's speeches. One New York Times reporter wrote of being so moved he could barely keep from weeping. Not for nothing did the role of the press become a news story in itself—an embarrassing one that might, serious people thought, serve as a caution during future campaigns.

In 2012 Barack Obama is no longer delivering thrilling speeches, but an unembarrassed press corps is still available, in full prosecutorial mode when it comes to coverage of the Republican challenger. If you hadn't heard the story about Mitt Romney's bullying treatment of another student during his prep-school days—1965, that is—the Washington Post had a story for you, a lengthy investigative piece. On the matter of Mr. Obama's school records, locked away and secured against investigation, the press maintains a serene incuriosity.

There's more at the link.

As I've said many times before, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, and I believe both President Obama and Mitt Romney have significant negative issues that make it impossible for me to support either of them, except in terms of voting for the lesser evil.  Furthermore, as I've also said before, I believe whoever is elected as our next President will be hamstrung by economic reality.  That said, however, I can't regard the present media frenzy of pro-Obama, anti-Romney rhetoric with anything other than intense disgust.  It's become so blatant that it's ridiculous.

Most of the mainstream media has now comprehensively demonstrated that it no longer deserves our respect.  It's worthy only of contempt, scorn and derision.

Peter