Worse than the depths to which the current political campaigning has descended is the low level of what is passing for reportage in the media. Major outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and a raft of social media newsletters function more as publicists for specific politicos while putting the knock on those they do not like. That would be perfectly reasonable if the commentary were restricted to the clearly labeled editorial pages. Unfortunately, there is widespread use of articles posing as news reports and headlines purporting to lead such stories sending out propaganda rather than unbiased information.

On the conservative side, the WSJ clearly does not like Donald Trump, and it is entitled to feel that way. What one finds in leafing through the powerful medium’s pages, however, are columnists putting the hit on the man while touting others in the GOP parade are treated with kid gloves.

The respected Pew Research organization sets the situation as follows:

Consistently Conservative: Fox News, local radio/TV newspapers.

Consistently Liberal: CNN, NPR, MSNBC, New York Times.

However all this shakes out, it represents a disturbing degrading of journalistic reportage.

Perhaps the least prejudiced reporting seems to come from the moderate Financial Times of London which was only recently sold to powerful Japanese owners in the Mitsubishi empire. It remains to be seen whether the high quality continues under new ownership. Since the FT is also among the most expensive publication, readership among American voters is limited.

Most distressing about this incontrovertible reality is there is no enforceable cure or even modest restraint. Any such effort would be met quite logically and with some reason as some kind of censorship. Equally of concern is the fact those who need to see through this kind of pseudo-journalism the most, the voting public, are consumed by economic pressures of their own, fears of potential international conflict involving the US and/or have already clearly expressed both their disdain and their disbelief for and in politics and politicians. Thus, hampered by such circumstances, vulnerable television viewers and only occasional readers of print are fertile prey.

Perhaps it is both naïve and foolish to think respected journalism professional associations would work to call these problems to the attention of the voting public but mostly to the media themselves before it’s too late, if that point has not been reached already. If nothing at all is done to address these concerns, we may still be able to boast the freest possible press in the world, but, unfortunately perhaps the most diminishingly professional and unprejudiced media.

* * *

Joe Honick is president of GMA International in Bainbridge Island, Wash.