Well, Fox News pulls people into their media bubble and reinforces it, so I don't think I'm making this shit up - obviously any news org with cred had its effect - the main paper in any city, talk shows since the 50s, etc, but the passion for straight news seems to have dropped with budget cuts and low staff and too much off the news feed. (I do have a news background, btw, incl getting past propaganda and outfitting journalists, along with just reading news feeds on air). If reporters show up at a debate and they (mostly) all come out focused on what the candidates were wearing or some insignificant gaff they can laugh about, vs the important details the candidates shared, the public's knowledge of that event and their choice is dumbed down. The more clever like Trump can play to that press weakness, knowing which bites they'll obsess over and feeding them what might seem to be self-defeating, but actually keeps him continually in the news. Gail Collins obsessing about Mitt Romney's dog on the roof, mentioned in 22 columns, may not play to too many, but it's dereliction of duty  at the "paper of record" (and yes, Mitt's a Republican). Sure, reporters will report the sexy that brings eyeballs, but at some point a few of them need to dig into the actual truth and workability of what's being spouted. With Gore it was one big game of "gotcha" - much of the press decided they didn't like him, so ran everything he said through a negative filter, making up crap, and similarly they gave Bush the likable glow, so even his malapropisms became a kind of charm. (no, it didn't matter if he mangled a few words - it's similar in that respect to Biden's stutter.)

My boss  was working with Gore on the Internet Superhighway project, so I know rather well the importance of what Gore was doing to bring internet into widespread public use vs the small barely connected university military islands, and I worked with the guy credited with creating "packet theory" (whether 1 person deserves credit...), considered the basis for the continuous interconnected internet that we know. So the stupid press blasted the politician most responsible for the success of the very important internet because they didn't fucking understand it and they were being smarmy teenagers.

Of course the press could have helped introduce the public to the magic of the internet (Wired magazine did a very good job of it at the time, though more a niche trade magazine, but the articles were near accessible to a larger non-tech audience).

Any other criticisms? 

PS - the whole Brexit effort was largely enabled by similar bubble press reporting personalities and horse races, rather than fairly obvious real-life economic, business & social effects it would have that got glossed over, vs Boris Johnson's tossed hair or Niles Farage's latest biting comment. Read a rightwing newspaper, and Brexit was golden, no ripples on the sea. Read a "left-wing" and it was as much about personalities or whether it carried historic socialist values. Somewhere in the middle the need for normal people to understand and decide got lost.

PPS - in 2013 Hillary had 70% plus popularity, consistent over a long time. A concerted média effort quickly slashed that once the election period began. It's not like the people "already thought that" as you claim - they were baseline halfway ignorant and comfortable with her, and we're "educated" to the new view where everything became hypercritical.

I don't watch Rachel Maddow because she comes across way too partisan. John from the Daily Show was fine for humor, but his serious poses are too off for me.

PPPS - I was really upset about the misleading info re Kavanaugh's parents who were quite wealthy enough to pay off his debts, and yes it makes sense that someone as fully in thelat side of the game from early on doesn't *need* to be paid off. So no, I don't like misinformation just because it's the "other side", and I do like adjusting my opinions based on real facts or sane intelligent analysis.