Observing the Democrats grapple with their electoral defeat is akin to watching an infant learning to walk. There are near-successes, followed by a literal return to the ground. Gradually, the child masters the balance necessary for movement; a lesson which once learned, is rarely forgotten. In contrast, the metaphorical balance of politicians can be unpredictable, with some recalling their footing while others remain toppled. Particularly striking is the surprise expressed by many in the liberal media; the prospect of defeat had not even crossed their minds once Kamala Harris was in the race. The reaction on the right, had Donald Trump been unsuccessful, would likely not have carried this surprise.
Consider, for example, MSNBC. Their political coverage is as predictable as a collection of bobbleheads on a car dashboard, ever-nodding in unison regardless of any bumps in the road. If your ‘Republicans’ harbors more animosity towards their own nominee and party than towards the Democrats, the much-touted ‘diversity’ in views may be more illusion than reality. However, a section of the liberal world is coming to terms with recent developments. Some are acknowledging their own missteps or subtly insinuating that they might not have been as forthcoming with their viewers as they could have been.
Among these voices is Scarborough, who is now decrying the out-of-touch nature of the progressive left to his thinning viewership. This diagnosis is not wrong, but it is curious that such a viewpoint wasn’t publicly expressed prior to the November 5th election. Another example that stands out is a prominent media persona. In the aftermath of the election, a podcast revealed the reality of the issues the Republicans campaigned upon; issues that the conservative media had emphasized while facing denials from the left.
The issues they raised, such as a rise in crime in Democrat-controlled cities and the adverse effects of inflation on the average citizen, were actually pertinent and real, contrary to pre-election liberal media narratives. The media perspectives preached before the vote seemed to contradict evident truths. Despite crime statistics representing a dire reality in major Democratic cities, the public story was one of declining crime rates. It was less about reality and more about securing a win.
This deliberate denial of problems and the projection of falsely rosy scenarios was evident to anyone with the slightest analytical perspective. Yet the Democratic supporters chose to consume this misleading narrative, valuing the comfort of concurrence over the stark reality. Some genuinely believed the underplaying of issues, while others simply clung to the hope that it was true.
The pain of reality isn’t mitigated by disbelieving it or being displeased with it. The truth simply exists, unaffected by personal perspectives or preferences. The Democrats are, as they come to terms with their loss, gaining an understanding of this difficult truth. To their credit, this lesson is a valuable one and in some ways a tough pill to swallow.
However, the crucial question isn’t limited to the extent of their self-admission. It also encompasses the degree of disappointment and betrayal their followers might feel when faced with the reality of being misled. The post-election drop in viewership of MSNBC, losing nearly half its audience, speaks volumes. The return of their viewers, now aware that they had been fed a skewed narrative for years, remains to be seen.
The media landscape will always have its share of devotees who seek affirmation over truth. The allure of hearing echoes of one’s own beliefs packaged as ‘news’ is undeniably strong. Yet one must exercise caution with any source that speaks only to appease biases, confirming what one wishes to hear rather than presenting an authentic reflection of reality. Aim for the nutritious sustenance of objective truth instead of the fleeting satisfaction of agreeable narratives.