Semafor reports that the media is struggling with the final proof of their impotence. They can no longer rig an election -- they're too small, too niche, and too despised -- and it's killing them.

Trump's victory isn't a result of a failure by news outlets to sufficiently hold him accountable. The real answer is one that is a lot more uncomfortable to grapple with: The national news media is more limited in its reach and influence than ever in the modern era.

For the third presidential contest in a row, the legacy news media -- represented by newspapers, television networks, magazines, and cable news networks -- spent months publishing and airing neutral to overwhelmingly negative news coverage of the former president. And for the second of those three instances, a majority of American voters largely ignored the implicit and explicit warnings of that coverage -- if they saw it at all -- and voted Trump into office.

Critical political media coverage simply did not resonate with a large swath of the electorate. Many voters showing up at the polls either did not agree with much of the legacy media's suggested or overt assessment of Trump's conduct or the various norm-shattering elements of his campaign, didn't see it, or didn't care. Local newspapers have continued to die off, leaving much of the country without a trusted local news source. Cord-cutting has decimated cable news viewership and taken a bite out of broadcast television viewership. Most of the people still watching are moderately to extremely old. With the exception of the Times, most other major national news organizations have seen shrinking audiences and have fewer resources than ever.

None of this is a surprise to many of the leaders of the country's most prestigious and rigorous news organizations. In a telephone call with me earlier this week, New Yorker Editor-in-Chief David Remnick said he didn't think "editors of a whole range of publications had the illusion that they were speaking to a majority of the electorate or the population."

...

It isn't just a problem of reach or distribution. To some media executives, it's a sign that the quality of news offered to Americans is not satisfying them, a view that Axios founder Jim VandeHei described as "gut-check time for traditional media."

"The verdict is not debatable: Half the country thinks traditional media is biased and often useless," he said. "They feel reporters treat Republicans like a crime beat and Democrats like friends in need. I don't think this is usually the case, but it happens enough to give critics pause."

Are you kidding me? It only happens on occasion?

Jessica Lessin, founder of The Information, similarly urged journalists to remain vigilant about their tone, arguing that while Trump is a unique challenge to cover, it isn't the media's job to serve as the political resistance to him.

"Trust in journalism is plummeting; it's lower than it was even four years ago," she wrote this week.

"That calls for caution. That's not weakness or shying away from asking tough questions -- but we must remember it's not our job to tell our readers what to think," she said. "Our job is to reveal new and important facts -- especially facts that powerful people want hidden."

Semafor can't help but piling on the cope -- it's all the fault of YouTubers who don't "fact-check" themselves like the famously truthful propaganda media do.

Oh, and the media is only ailing because it alone is brave enough to do "confrontational" interviews.

Oh? They confronted Biden about his cognitive decline, did they? They confronted Kamala about her sudden fake-out policy shifts, huh?

Nontraditional media has a few advantages over more traditional outlets. Popular podcasts and YouTube shows rely on the news media for information that informs their segments, but they do not employ journalists and are not held to the same standards of accuracy and accountability. News media outlets are often boxed in by rigorous fact-checking; comedy YouTubers can say whatever they want with little consequence.

And of course it's Elon Musk's fault:

A willingness to do confrontational journalism has also made the mainstream media the enemy of powerful political and business interests. Part of the distrust in traditional news media stems from those same interests trying to discredit it, Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg noted in an interview. Musk's stewardship of X and forceful denunciations of the news media is a particularly illustrative example.

They "have a vested interest first in neutralizing and then demonizing the journalists and the journalistic institutions that are investigating their behavior," he said. "It's a deliberate campaign to marginalize, and even demonize, because they fear the outcome of our investigations and our scrutiny."

We fear you less and less, Porky.

How do you hurt a status-obsessed cadre of ideologues? Take away their status and rubbish their ideology.