Many people today distrust the mainstream media, although for very different reasons. Conservatives insist that it is of liberal bias. How often have we heard the refrain, "don't trust the liberal media?"

I have long considered the assertion that the mainstream media, i.e., the radio and television networks, cable channels, and major newspapers are "liberal" is patently ridiculous. It's as if conservatives insist that anything to the left of Fox News is of liberal bias.

A more accurate interpretation is that the problem with the mainstream media lies in its profit motive and need to satisfy its corporate masters - corporate owners with profits, and corporate entities that pay the bills through advertising, by not airing anything that might be too offensive. After all, it isn't a bunch of hippies from the 1960s who pay the bills; it's the major corporations.

Since advertising revenue depends on ratings, the networks compete for viewers, one result of which is merging what passes for "news" with entertainment, resulting in dumbing down, and even neglect, of real issues. A second result is a competition of news anchors for celebrity status. The debacle involving NBC's Brian Williams is a recent example. For sake of ratings, those who deliver the news become more significant than the news that they deliver.

Investigative reporting is expensive. In order to profit, and even survive, America's once-great newspapers cut costs by cutting staff, including foreign-based reporters.

There is no incentive for mainstream journalists or news anchors to go "out on a limb," suggesting other than the conventional or received wisdom. If one, for example, suggests that a popular, accepted course of action is wrong, and the result turns out good, the contrary one will be "proven" to be an oddball and a flake. But if the course of action turns out bad, hey, everyone else was wrong too.

There is little reward in journalism, or in politics for that matter, for being right, and no punishment for being wrong, just as long as everyone else was wrong too. Even though a majority of Americans now believe invasion of Iraq was a mistake, those who correctly advised against it receive no plaudits and no praise. Those politicians who were gung ho for invasion continue to be sought by news gurus for their advice and counsel. The media journalists who promoted it offer no apologies.

The mainstream media implicitly set the boundaries of acceptable debate. One can appreciate the need for professional journalistic standards. However, the record of the media on items ranging from invasion of Iraq, holding prisoners at Guantanamo without trial, government-sanctioned torture, rollout of the Affordable Healthcare Act, and much more is one at least bordering on, if not total, malfeasance.

To attract viewers, the need remains for what passes for "news" to be interesting. Since conflict is more interesting, and entertaining, than agreement, conflicts either are exaggerated, or created where none exist. More tragically, real issues are neglected.

Here are a couple of examples.

Like her or not, no candidate for the presidency has been more thoroughly vetted or better prepared for the office than Hillary Clinton. While anything can happen during this election cycle, she has a better chance than any of the other current three Democrats and thirteen or more Republicans to achieve that office.

But the mainstream media can't handle this. They neglect the real story and create fictitious conflicts.

Researchers know that the answer you get depends on how you ask the question. "Can Senator Sanders, a self-declared democratic socialist, be elected to the presidency?" The answer will be "no."

But when you ask voters their positions on income inequality, regulation of financial institutions, minimum wage, international trade, student debt relief, and a whole bunch of other stuff, Sanders is right in line with a majority of Americans. But it's simpler for the media to reinforce the conventional wisdom and dismiss him as "too far left." The real story is that Sanders is in line with a majority of voters, and what is painted as "far left," is actually quite centrist.

With Sanders dismissed by the media, they must invent problems where none exist. They reinforce each other's assertion that Mrs. Clinton has changed positions, and "that will certainly be a problem for her."

Really? The nation's views on gay marriage have evolved. It would be surprising if hers have not evolved also.

The nation has come around to the view that invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Sure, she voted in favor of it at the time, but so did those Republicans who are Mrs. Clinton's harshest critics.

She is accused of equivocating on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) even as she once heralded it as an opportunity. Is this a real problem for her? I would say not, as it is reasonable to wait until its terms become known. At that time she will have some actual text on which to comment.

And what about all these reporters and "analysts" repeating the refrain that "she represents the past," and, "the millennials don't know her."

If there was ever a problem created that doesn't exist, this is it. Even as the Republicans who claim to be a voice of the future, representing "fresh ideas," can come up with nothing more than failed trickle down economic snake oil, our mainstream media insist that "Hillary has a problem with the past."

However basically intelligent and well-intentioned are the high priests of the mainstream media, there is no incentive for them to wade outside the boundaries of the received conventional wisdom. If the mainstream media gurus insist that the past is a problem for Mrs. Clinton, an appropriate response would be, "Hey, what have you got against peace, prosperity, and federal budget surpluses?"

Of her potential problems, comparison of the Clinton and Bush/Republican legacies is surely not one of them.



- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.