We're electing a president this year, but the media will call it a game

It's happening already.

Up until it became apparent that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee in the 2016 presidential election, all we heard from the media was what a disaster it would be for the GOP to nominate him.

That may or may not have been true, but the media hasn't covered an election honestly in more than 40 years.

In fact, they don't cover elections at all anymore.

They cover horse races.

"It's Trump moving up on the rail ..."

We have reached a point in this country where almost everything has been dumbed down and turned into some form of entertainment.

It isn't always a horse race. Sometimes it's a football or baseball game, others a boxing match. But it's always some sort of game, and when it comes to the media, a close game is always better.

If you've ever watched a televised football game in which one team was totally dominant in the first half, it isn't at all surprising to hear the announcer say the game isn't over yet because the losing team is capable of making a comeback.

It isn't about truth and it isn't even about reality. Surveys show two-thirds of voters have a negative opinion of Trump, and the only two living Republican presidents have said they won't do anything to help him get elected.

There is as much chance of an epically lopsided election as a close one, but through September and October, we'll hear far more about how Trump is gaining in the polls or catching on with voters than about any of his positions on issues.

False equivalence

But something else the media do is far worse. Creating false equivalencies, using he-said-she-said and refusing to call a lie a lie. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explains:

"A more important vice in political coverage, which we’ve seen all too often in previous elections — but will be far more damaging if it happens this time — is false equivalence. 

"You might think that this would be impossible on substantive policy issues, where the asymmetry between the candidates is almost ridiculously obvious.

"To take the most striking comparison, Mr. Trump has proposed huge tax cuts and no plausible offsetting spending cuts, yet has also promised to pay down U.S. debt; meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has proposed modest spending increases paid for by specific tax hikes.

"That is, one candidate is engaged in wildly irresponsible fantasy while the other is being quite careful with her numbers. But beware of news analyses that, in the name of 'balance,' downplay this contrast."

Wait and see.

No matter who the candidates are this fall, the media will concentrate on two things. We'll hear that it's the most exciting election ever and that it doesn't really matter who wins.

That's not liberal media.

It's lobotomized media.