I'm a firm believer that the media over represented Trump leading up to the election in an effort to appear balanced and neutral.
This often meant twisting and skewing Trump's (lack of) rhetoric to make it seem of equal validity to the policy proposed by Clinton.
But they are not equal.
Clinton clearly outlined the exact steps of her plans, and what she wanted to do on a given issue.
Trump either didn't present a policy (ISIS, Aleppo), or presented a rhetoric based entirely on vague (MAGA), or blatantly false (Climate change is a hoax) pretense.
This actually causes the media to be *less* neutral by giving undeserved credence to Trump's platform, but comparing it as equal to Clinton's.
There are other issues where the media does the same thing by bringing in a dissenting view on issues that have been factually proven and concluded.
In other words, there is no rational dissenting view for:
* Climate change is caused by humans.
* The Earth was created billions of years ago, not thousands.
* No race is intellectually superior to another.
This perpetuation of false equivalencies misleads the public into thinking that two things are equal and opposite, as opposed to unequal.
Edit: Leaving now, be back in a couple of hours.