Well, of course not, if all your sources are of the same ideological bent from the same journalism schools with the same pedigree who all socialize with each other. Exactly how much difference in viewpoint and reporting do you expect if one wants to keep one’s social circle intact. The answer is - not much.
I do not expect you understand the above because you do not even see the fundamental issue that before they begin reporting they are all the same already. You are expecting whiskey from a bottle of wine - no changing these people because to get out of journalism school, you must think and present news a certain way.
Dutifully, you prove my point with your next paragraph below.
Re the bolded section above - exactly who appointed the media the arbiter of accuracy, facts, expertise and the definers of tolerance? So, they get to choose what people learn from the angle they decide? Seriously, who anointed the media to this position, except themselves and the people who look up to them? A bit self-serving, is it not?
I do not expect you to understand this either because you think the media are uniquely smart and qualified people, and you seem not to have the ability to accept they are human just like everyone else and will not present views that are contrary to their own if they do not have to. And, more importantly, they are encouraged to push their own views, if they self-servingly think they are the arbiters of accuracy, facts, expertise, and the definers of tolerance.
And it is from this self-serving, self-annoited position from which, to a man, the media got it all wrong. For me, that is the biggest news story of the year - how the media led it followers down a rabbit hole.
If the media is the arbiter of “accuracy, facts, and expertise,” why were they not astute enough to figure out the polls were that wrong?
Occam’s Razor answer - the polls confirmed their narrative and worldview of what they wanted to be true. They got suckered just like everyone else; hence, they are not as smart as they think. Follow them at your own risk.
The sinister answer - the media knew, but ignored the evidence and presented a fake narrative to its readers in an attempt to push their world view.
Neutral answer - Plain ignorance. For example, if you do not visit Wisconsin an rural PA, then you will not have a clue what the people are thinking there. (Well, that would, in hindsight, prove not to be too bright)
People are free to pick which reason they think it is.
(All emphases mine)