Is it time to reconsider the Washington press corps? Consider that "media" has changed. The real reporters in today's media are bloggers with special interests who stay tuned to everything that affects them and their world view. They are the investigative press corps of today and have contacts with average Americans on a daily basis, are probably personally and/or professionally involved in the industries and issues about which they write. Never in the history of the world have so many had such access to expose abuses of government (the real purpose of the First Amendment) and industry to the wider public.
The press coverage of the 2016 election has established a solid connection between the Democratic Party and the press. Television, as a news source, has been discredited along with almost every newspaper largely due to their own success. As news organizations grow larger and larger, they also grow more distant from the lives and concerns of their viewers/readers/listeners. They are so large, at this point, that they no longer have to be responsive to both conservatives and liberals in order to survive. They can appeal to just one ideology and remain fiscally sound. But, this has led to the backlash the large media outlets have suffered during the election and beyond.
It seems, then, that President Trump will not be able to effectively transmit his message through a highly biased press corps. When the people cannot trust the press corps to faithfully represent political issues to the public, they serve no purpose to the general public and so should be evaluated on whether or not they serve the purposes of the First Amendment that gives them access to the machinations of government.
It would seem, at this point in time, that some of the "old guard" in the Washington press corps need to leave and others brought in to fill their slots in the "pool" of reporters used when very limited access is possible, such as during treaty negotiations and matters of national security. Now, I have no suggestions as to which "new media" sites might be brought into the press corps, the Drudge Report seems to be one logical candidate and while The Drudge Report might not be considered "neutral" are any of the others?
It is obvious that we need a new understanding of "the news." With the sudden, aggressive attacks on what the bloated, politically-slanted news mega corporations term "fake news" there is a sense of the wounded behemoth lashing out at the mirror. Having largely discredited themselves by their own actions, they now seek victims to blame. Unfortunately for them, the public they have ceased to try and inform have already turned to other, more reliable sources for accurate and complete information necessary for the public to carry out their stewardship of the government, which is its proper role in a functioning republic.
Perhaps it is time for Donald Trump to reconfigure and redefine what passes for a press corps that represents all of America, not just those living on one coast or another. We are a wide and diverse nation that is no longer served by the current configuration of the Washington press corps. Everything has its time and, as history has shown, that time always passes and gives way to the new.
Also, it might be time for NPR, if it wants to retain the portion of its budget that is federally funded, to reconsider its choices of grants and production value of conservative documentaries such as LIES OF OMISSION.