There has indeed been an outsized amount of favorable Trump coverage, and an abandonment of critical analysis under the auspices of "balance." But there has also been widespread hostility in the press toward Clinton — and it is much more difficult, apparently, to admit one's role in that.There is much, much more at the link.
Understandably so, when one deep-dives into just how antagonistic the media have been to the nation's first major-party woman nominee. It would be bad enough if it had only been unjustifiably sustained criticism of Clinton, or only been endemic indifference to Clinton rolling out solid policy as Trump tried to drag her into the mud, or only been profile after profile of Trump voters played against the erroneous narrative of insufficient enthusiasm for Clinton, or only one of dozens of other demonstrable inequities in coverage.
Any one of those would warrant necessary self-reflection on the media's failures during this cycle — but it was much, much worse than that.
This is going to be an important piece to keep on hand, I fear, as the erasure of what went down during this election moves into high gear in the coming weeks.
Also check out my colleague Peter Daou's piece: "Hey media, will we EVER get to see an actual Clinton supporter?"