is both extremely unrealistic; and, as you say, ability to to do so would be alarming in itself.
Whatever factors went into its beginnings, the MSM long ago developed a symbiotic relationship with and became complicit with an industry that's been trying to destroy the Clintons, and the MSM are in league with the Republicans and other right wing power groups in that respect.
The 24/7/325 news cycles and need to keep viewerships profitable are unquestionably part of it, and operators like Judicial Watch quickly understood that being able to supply red meat to the always-voracious news cycle benefited both.
After a quarter century of building careers during this period, the MSM is now in so deep that "discovering" the truth would mean exposing the complicity of most top "journalists" and political experts, and that just wouldn't do. Besides, I see no indication that they want to -- they are believers because what would they be if they weren't? Certainly nothing they can admit.
And the price of joining the insiders club is a willingness to become one of the believers. No one on most cable or TV segments is allowed to say anything positive about Hillary (not that most ever want to--except when an eye to their own image requires it briefly), and any positive coverage must at the very least finish with a condemnatory caveat harking back to some well-calcified lie. Newbies understand the rules before first being invited on and abide if they want to be invited back.
That's a sixth rule I add by observation to the five this fallen-away journalist lists.
"Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary"
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules
It'll be interesting to see what happens with Joy Reid. Apparently MSNBC felt there was a need for some "balance," and it seems likely an HRC administration would continue that need.
= new reply since forum marked as read
