New York Times right-of-center columnist Ross Douthat diplomatically but thoroughly documented the liberal bias and anti-Trump animus in the mainstream press. Of necessity, he avoided criticizing his own paper, but some of the shrewd points he made in “The Tempting of the Media” on Sunday certainly apply to journalists at his own paper.

Douthat summarized “two common views among journalists about the fate of our profession under the presidency of Donald Trump,” one of a crackdown on independent journalism, the other “a golden age...for serious investigative journalism.” But he had another worry:

... Mainstream journalism in this strange era may be freer than the fearful anticipate, but not actually better as the optimists expect. Instead, the press may be tempted toward -- and richly rewarded for -- a kind of hysterical oppositionalism, a mirroring of Trump’s own tabloid style and disregard for truth.

Douthat took the media’s anti-Republican slant as a given, but said it could get even more blatant as journalists take up cudgels against Trump.

But the coverage of the Trump transition has made me particularly concerned for how the media will evolve. A certain amount of hysteria is normal whenever Republicans take power, and some of the coverage -- like the suggestions that Betsy DeVos is about to turn U.S. public education into Calvin’s Geneva, say -- has been almost reassuring in its familiarity. Perhaps there have been more sneering headlines and poorly-sourced claims about Trump cabinet appointees than about past Republican administrations, but I remember the “theocracy” panic of 2004 and I don’t want to judge the current freak-out too harshly. In places where Trump is clearly abnormal, however, the media has become abnormally credulous as well. There is no question, for instance, that Trump’s racist forays and racist supporters deserve attention; from the start this has been one of the most troubling aspects of the Trump phenomenon. But since November there has been a kind of service journalism for alarmism on this issue, in which lavish attention for far-fringe white nationalists who wear button-down shirts and host D.C. press conferences is paired with reports on a Trump-fueled hate crime wave whose scope may be overstated and whose most vivid illustrations have a way of being less than true. Then there are Trumpworld’s possible ties to Russia and the possible Russian attempts to exert influence on his behalf. This is an incredibly serious business, but it has not produced incredibly serious journalism. Instead there has been a rush to publicize all manner of dubious claims, from the midsummer reports of a secret server supposedly linking to Trump Tower and a Russian bank to more recent stories exaggerating Russia’s penetration of the U.S. power grid and accusing a variety of normal left-wing and right-wing websites of being Kremlin pawns.

<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

This pattern peaked (so far) with BuzzFeed’s decision to dump a dossier of completely unverified rumors about Trump’s Russian connections on the internet, with a shrugging, “decide for yourself if it’s true” note accompanying the release. That dossier may well include some dark truths, but the way they were delivered to American news readers was effectively self-discrediting, more likely to help Trump brush aside legitimate allegations than to pin him or his circle to the wall.

(Note the Times, predictably, was the venue for Buzzfeed’s editor-in-chief Ben Smith’s defense of the site's publication of the unsubstantiated dossier allegedly documenting disturbing ties between the Trump team and Russia.)