The Perils of Soft Scrutiny: Furious Dems Should Blame Big Media
In trying to help the Democratic Party win, mass corporate media outlets just did the exact opposite.
Following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, progressive frustration with the Democratic Party has deepened, sparking a broader critique: the role of corporate media in the party’s defeat.
Some critics contend that, in trying to shield Democratic candidates from Republican attacks and maintain party unity, major outlets inadvertently left their preferred candidates ill-prepared for the high-stakes challenges of a general election.
These outlets arguably contributed to a fragile campaign dynamic by prioritizing favorable narratives over substantive scrutiny. Democratic candidates — and most particularly Vice President Kamala Harris — spared from rigorous public vetting, faced difficulties when confronted with the unrelenting criticisms and sharp attacks that are the hallmark of any general election.
Some progressive voices now wonder if this approach deprived the electorate of robust, unvarnished debate and left candidates untested in the crucible of political contestation.
In “Lessons from 2024,” The Hill’s Keith Naughton concluded that “The Biden administration had to make a drastic policy turn. And yet, drunk…