There is never a level playing field in an American election. For example, the two major political parties have major advantages that third parties can't muster. Another example is the major Democratic Party advantage of the home-team announcers calling the action on the playing field. Our national media set the terms and the tone of our democracy.
The pro-Democrat tilt of every election comes to mind when the pseudo-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin gushed on ABC's "The View" on Sept. 3 that "the momentum is on Kamala Harris' side right now." The electorate is highly polarized and the polls are tight, but "she's running a flawless campaign ... she's running really smart."
In every election cycle, it is abundantly easier for Democrats to appear to have "momentum" when the media prattle on about their supposed momentum. It is easier to declare Democratic campaigns are "flawless" when the media steamroll over any flaw that emerges. It is easier to look "really smart" when journalists tell everyone you're smart, and if voters don't understand you have a stunning intellect, then you're "misunderstood."
The media act like the wind beneath Kamala's wings, and then they praise her flying skills.
Her weaknesses are buried as Donald Trump's strengths are attacked. She fails to empathize with Gold Star parents whose children were killed in Afghanistan, and the media attack Trump for having the chutzpah to show up at Arlington National Cemetery at their invitation. The only scandals that aren't fake news are the Republican scandals.
Here's another advantage that can be maddening to Republicans. The Washington Post published a story on Sept. 2 headlined "Trump aims to drag down Harris as he scrambles to keep up in tight race." The subhead underlined the spin: "The Republican nominee's advisers and allies are clear-eyed about the unlikelihood of improving his standing. That leaves one option: damaging hers."
Can we turn that the other way? Isn't Harris aiming to "drag down Trump"? Isn't her goal "damaging Trump"? Do the political editors at The Post really think the Democrats don't criticize their opponents? Do these Posties understand that nearly everyone thinks their primary goal in journalism since 2015 has been to destroy and even imprison Trump? Any notion of their objectivity died in darkness decades ago.
On Sept. 3, National Public Radio senior political editor Domenico Montanaro blared out a similar spin: "Former President Trump is ramping up attacks on Harris, trying to drag her down. So expect the race to get even uglier."
A listener to taxpayer-funded radio might detect a bullying flavor, as in the Big Bad Wolf is aiming to ruin Little Red Riding Hood. Or if that makes Harris sound too vulnerable, she might be Wonder Woman, and Trump is imagined as Wonder Woman's evil nemesis Doctor Poison, or maybe Doctor Psycho.
Journalists don't see their own work as "ramping up attacks" on Republicans and making the race "even uglier." In their egotistical dreams, they are never adding ugliness to politics. By opposing Trump, they're opposing ugliness, and writing a flawless first draft of history.
In her convention speech, Harris called for moving "past the bitterness, cynicism, and divisive battles of the past." But everything Harris and her media allies are doing is bitterly attacking Trump, dividing voters, and then cynically insisting they are not the bitter dividers.
This explains why Gallup found only 11% of Republicans and 29% of independents have a "great deal" or a "fair amount" of confidence in the media's performance. They sound like they deliver DNC advertising instead of the old-fashioned straight news.