The idea that some of the highly-paid MSM pundits, who proclaim that the media's political miscalculations are a natural conclusion made by out-of-touch 'elites' is a rather presumptuous assumption. Brian Stelter asked Fareed Zakaria what he thought about Brexit and how it caught so many in the media off guard. Apparently, the reason is not the actual both-siderist fallacies these 'MSM-elites' cling to, but the fact that they are almost too educated and too smart for their own good.
After Stelter plays a Chuck Todd clip, where he lists himself among the 'political media elite,' Zakaria explains that those in that group are more liberal, more pluralistic, more educated. The media are often accused of bias, most are left of center (is that a bad thing?)
The media outlets who favored the Brexit Leave Movement used emotion, employing a viscerally appealing strategy of fear-mongering about inadequate social services, which would be bursting from the seams with immigrant refugees. Those media moguls, who literally drove the Brexit Leave movement were very much to the right of center, or in this case, to the right of sanity.
The media has a bias in favor of facts, claims Zakaria. Except in the case of Fox 'News' in the U.S. and the Fox News equivalent in the U.K. which is in print form. The Daily Mail and The Sun (owned by Uncle Rupey, like Fox 'News') pushed the Far Right fantasy of the Nigel Farages and Boris Johnsons and used the same tactic used by the Far Right in the U.S. It's not exactly playing fair, as Fareed explains:
Journalists have to point out when one side is using facts and the other side is using, is pushing emotional buttons, that there's a difference, they're not equivalent.
They discussed the recent exodus of George Will from the Republican Party. Will is, according to Zakaria, the most influential conservative writer, and that's plausible given his forty years posting editorials to The Washington Post. The CNN GPS host also claims that Will is an 'honorable Conservative,' and many would argue that it is an oxymoron. So by the nature of that self-contradiction, Zakaria covers his rear and fails to really state the truth about Republicans in general. They are not ruled by facts either.
Fareed was not terribly thrilled with the various Republicans who refused to endorse Trump but would not use the #NeverTrump phrase. However, he was tickled that Hank Paulson, 'incredibly distinguished former Secretary of the Treasury,' finally satisfied his craving to hear him utter the phrase, #NeverTrump.
Mr. Zakaria concludes that this time, with the GOP Nominee being so unqualified, so unethical, endorsing him, or not is a matter of character, not party. 'There's a fundamental character flaw here' with Donald Trump, and he truly believes that this gives prominent Republicans a valid way out of supporting someone so reprehensible.
What he fails to realize is that by giving the both-sides argument credence for all these years, that sort of apologist behavior helped create the Republican's Orange Monstrosity or as the Scottish say, Mangled Apricot Hellbeast. Perhaps if Zakaria and others like him would stop giving equal time to fact-free commentary, maybe the Republicans wouldn't be in such a pickle. Enabling Trump is no better than supporting him.