However,
I don't recall the wall to wall coverage of Trump's misdeeds back then. Not the way it is now. Perhaps, I should have worded my thoughts more precisely. Trump did not get the wall to wall coverage he deserved to sound the alarms necessary to alert independent voters to how much of a danger he is. That is what should have been happening.
The media should have been sounding the alarms, the way they are now. Instead, what we got was the false equivalency about Hillary's emails and other crap about Hillary. As if both candidates were on the same level. Hillary was far more criticized. So no. The media did not do a very good job of vetting him. Media execs, thought he was good for ratings. I recall- Andrea Mitchell constantly talking about Hillary's emails, so even MSNBC drank the Kool Aid - of trying to be fair and balanced. Andrea, has since said, she and other media personnel were complicit in shifting the conversation.
Die hard Trump supporters will always be there. It wouldn't have mattered to them. I am speaking about how covering him differently might have made a difference for the independents. The ones that truly believed that Donald Trump would somehow make a difference. The ones that now are turned off by his cruel nature of ripping children out of mother's arms.
I think a really good example is Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC - a republican, we know - is now against him, but was an ardent supporter in the beginning. I am sure many people watched his show and thought, oh well if Joe supports him, he must be alright.
Although, he's not a serious journalist. I think it really helped " normalized" him, when he went on Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Fallon playfully ruffled his hair, toupee, whatever that thing is and gave him a human like quality.
= new reply since forum marked as read