Media bias is a great disservice to the American public

We didn’t need the "60 Minutes” story or a (second?)  Vogue cover to convince us that the media are rooting heavily for Vice President Kamala Harris in the upcoming election. And before those involved start clutching their pearls and breathlessly reiterating the fiction that they are “independent journalists,” keep in mind that no one really believes that. Maybe they don't even believe it.

And that’s fine. This is about politics and governance, not media biases. 

If Harris wins, the media can congratulate themselves for having helped. There is nothing wrong with that. All sorts of people participate in the public square in all sorts of ways. Some people run for office, others support think tanks, and some go into journalism. Many of us are activists in some way.

But if she loses, I imagine a lot of those media voices will be leading the chorus of voices trying to explain how such a “tragedy” could take place in this country. Their introspection will likely include whether America really wants a dictator, whether  the Electoral College should be replaced, or if the “deplorables” are just too stupid to elect Harris.

The following is my message to those mainstream journalists. If you fall into that category, please print this out now and put it in an envelope marked "Open on Nov. 6 if Harris loses."  So here it is:

So here it is:  blame yourselves.

I know it seems counterintuitive that, having worked so hard to help the Harris campaign, you have caused her to lose. But in doing so, you have been so extreme and so painfully obvious as to undermine your own credibility with a large swath of the country. At least half of America just assumes automatically that whatever you report isn’t accurate. 

After all, you tried to convince everyone that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian hoax. It wasn’t.

You misleadingly — and deliberately — suggested that Trump intentionally destroyed phone call logs from Jan. 6. He didn’t.

You suggested again and again that Trump called neo-Nazi protesters at Charlottesville “good people.” He did not, and in fact he condemned them.

You repeatedly tried to convince people that Trump has openly promised to be a “dictator from Day One.” He said “for one day.”

You have perpetuated the myth that Trump promised a “bloodbath” if he doesn’t win the election. He was obviously referencing the impact on the U.S. automotive industry if Biden-Harris policies continue.

Do you see a trend here? Everybody else does. Or at least the people outside of your editorial staff meetings, your faculty boardrooms, and your dinner parties in Washington.

Take a recent story from NBC about Trump “escalating” his attacks on criticism of him. The story — presented as a news piece, not opinion — follows the now timeworn pattern of comparing Trump to Vladimir Putin, suggesting that he wants to criminalize political speech, and even referencing an “expert who studies authoritarianism and fascism.” There is also what has become the obligatory Hitler reference. 

The purpose of the piece was pretty simple; to frighten people into thinking Trump is going to throw all of his political enemies into jail, suspend the First Amendment, and institute a repressive dictatorial regime should he become president again. It is, as usual, never made clear how he would do this, but there it is.

Lost in all of that was something that immediately occurred to roughly half the people in this country: Trump has already been president. Hillary Clinton didn’t go to jail. The First Amendment was not even scaled back, let alone abolished. And now the democracy that Trump supposedly despises so much has just voted to give him another term in office. 

Maybe the problem is that people look at the world as they see it, and it just doesn’t line up with the stories you are trying to sell them.

I have no objection to media outlets picking favorites. It is a long tradition in this country. Indeed, the idea of an “unbiased” media was (in hindsight) a short-lived experiment of the post-World War II era, as embodied by the Fairness Doctrine (1948-1987, may it rest in peace). Media has always been biased, and there is nothing wrong with that.

But when media refuse to admit their bias, favor one side of the political spectrum so heavily, and allow their hatred for one candidate or party to warp their vision of the truth, then the country is not well served.   

A few years back a study found that only about one-third of Americans had any trust in the media. Only 7 percent had a great deal of trust. That’s bad enough. What’s worse is that, among Republicans, the number was only 14 percent. Independents were at 27 percent.

To put that in perspective, that isn’t much better than the approval ratings for Congress at that same time.

You want to talk about threats to democracy? A media so completely lacking in credibility with the broader citizenry is probably a bigger threat than anything Trump could do in a second term.

There is going to come a time when we need — all of us — to be able to trust the media again to tell us what is actually true. We need the media to be a reputable part of the checks-and-balances of our republic. Right now, you are failing at that. COVID gave us some insight into what can happen when that breaks down. It could be even worse in the future.   

Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman from South Carolina, is a contributor to NewsNation. He served as director of the Office of Management and Budget, acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and White House chief of staff under President Donald Trump.