We Already Know One Big Loser in This Election: The Mainstream Media

Americans will head to the polls Tuesday in what feels like the most consequential election of our lifetimes. Again. Whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris emerges as the victor, there’s an issue that transcends outcome: a reckoning that’s long overdue in mainstream media.

For years, major news outlets have twisted themselves into knots trying to appease critics on the right. In the process, they’ve alienated not just the left but anyone who cares about honest, fearless journalism. This isn’t just about bad optics or bruised egos; it’s about the very foundation of our democracy and the essential role a free press plays within it.

It’s no secret that the right has long harbored disdain for mainstream media, branding it with terms like “fake news” and “enemy of the people.” But what’s new—and frankly alarming—is the mounting frustration from the center and left. These are readers who once defended these institutions, subscribed, donated, and championed the importance of a free press. Now, they’re canceling subscriptions and voicing their disillusionment.

Jeff Jarvis captured this sentiment in his recent piece for the Columbia Journalism Review. He noted, “What is new and striking is the current wave of grievances regarding political coverage coming from once-devoted liberal readers as well as experienced journalists.” When your most loyal supporters start questioning your integrity, that’s not just a red flag—it’s a siren blaring in the newsroom.

By bending over backward to appease right-wing critics—who, let’s be honest, are unlikely to ever be satisfied—mainstream outlets risk alienating their core audience. These are the readers who’ve stuck with them through thick and thin, defended them against accusations of bias, and financially supported them in an era where journalism is under economic strain.

The decision by The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times to spike their endorsements of Kamala Harris without warning or satisfactory explanation serves as a case study. This move didn’t come across as a principled stand for neutrality; it felt like capitulation, a betrayal of trust. As Jarvis observes, “[Jeff] Bezos destroyed trust within the newsroom he owns and among opinion journalists who are writing protests, even resigning.”

One of the core issues is the media’s infatuation with bothsidesism. It’s the idea that every story has two equally valid sides deserving equal weight, even when one side is demonstrably false or harmful. Imposing false balance in situations where one side is actively undermining democratic norms doesn’t serve the truth—it obscures it.

When media outlets insist on presenting both sides as equally valid, they fail in their duty to inform the public. They become complicit in normalizing dangerous behavior.

What’s perhaps most troubling is how some media leaders dismiss valid criticism from the center and left. In a leaked internal meeting reported by Max Tani at Semafor, New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn brushed off critiques, saying, “What they’re interested in is having us be a mouthpiece for their already predetermined point of view.… That’s agenda-driven partisan journalism.”

That isn’t just a mischaracterization; it’s a slap in the face to readers and journalists who care deeply about the integrity of the press. Wanting accurate, context-rich reporting that holds power to account isn’t partisan—it’s the baseline expectation of journalism.

Internal dynamics within news organizations are also showing signs of strain. Journalists are increasingly voicing their frustrations, both publicly and privately.

Even within The New York Times, respected journalists like Jamelle Bouie and Nikole Hannah-Jones have offered nuanced critiques and journalism lessons, often in the face of institutional resistance. When your own journalists feel the need to publicly address shortcomings within the industry, that’s a clear sign that something is amiss.

Another issue is the media’s tendency to report events in a vacuum, devoid of historical context. Bouie sets a great example by regularly incorporating history into his analyses. When Trump and JD Vance spread false stories about Haitian immigrants in Ohio, Bouie didn’t just debunk the lie; he contextualized it within a long history of racist propaganda.

In a TikTok video, Bouie explained, “What they’re doing is called a blood libel. It is smearing a group of people with the accusation that they are killing—in the case of Jews in medieval Europe, killing children; in the case of Haitian immigrants in 2024 United States, killing pets and eating them.… And the purpose and the point of a blood libel is to incite violence.”

By providing this context, Bouie not only informs his audience but also highlights the severity of the rhetoric. This is the kind of journalism that holds power to account and serves the public interest.

It’s high time for mainstream media to reevaluate their priorities. The goal shouldn’t be to avoid accusations of bias at all costs; it should be to report the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable.

As we arrive at another election, the stakes for democracy couldn’t be higher. The media plays an essential role in informing voters, holding candidates accountable, and preserving democratic norms. When they falter, the ripple effects can be catastrophic.

Jarvis warns, “I have been engaging in painful reflection about the field to which I have devoted fifty years of my career.… I wonder whether to give up on incumbent, institutional news media. Can these institutions be reformed? I do not know.”

That’s a sobering admission from someone who has dedicated his life to journalism. It should serve as a wake-up call to media organizations everywhere.

So, where do we go from here? It’s not all doom and gloom. There’s still time for mainstream media to course-correct, but it will require genuine introspection and a willingness to embrace change—something media executives aren’t exactly known for.

First, acknowledge mistakes—not with performative apologies but by understanding where coverage has fallen short and committing to do better. Embrace constructive criticism by listening to readers and journalists who offer good-faith critiques. They’re not the enemy; they’re the ones who care enough to demand better.

Prioritize truth over misguided notions of neutrality. Reporting the facts doesn’t always mean giving equal weight to unequal sides. Sometimes, one side is simply wrong, and it’s the journalist’s job to say so. Provide context by incorporating history, expert analysis, and deeper insights into reporting. Help readers understand not just what’s happening but why it matters.

Stand firm against disinformation. Don’t amplify falsehoods under the guise of balance. Fact-check rigorously and call out lies for what they are.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, the challenges we face as a nation will persist. We’ll need a press that’s up to the task—one that isn’t afraid to hold power accountable, that doesn’t shy away from uncomfortable truths, and that values integrity over appeasement.

Ignoring valid criticism from the center and left isn’t just bad journalism; it’s a betrayal of the democratic principles that the media is supposed to uphold.