They are getting desperate

The media is almost completely unified in standing against Trump. Even Glen Greenwald, who is very anti-Trump, agrees. Most people here probably understand that our media is biased. Everyone knows the major outlets are owned by powerful corporations with their own agendas. Yet they find it difficult to accept just how biased they are in reality.

A book could be written about this compromise of our media in this election cycle, and surely many will, but here are a few very recent examples to solidify the claim.

• The day after Trump's long acceptance speech, the media uniformly used one adjective for it, dark. Does it seem odd that all the media outlets would use the same adjective? What really are the odds? And moreover, did the speech really sound dark to you? He did what any opposition candidate does: highlighted the failures of the current officials and promised to fix them. To the extent it was dark or negative was simply that Obama's legacy is particularly abysmal. But so was Bush. Did they call Obama's acceptance speech dark? In any case, it certainly seems like the media had colluded to present a uniform message to the American people, and probably chose the term dark before the speech was even given.
  
  And in truth collusion is exactly what happened. Shortly after the speech we saw in the DNC leaks that the media actually did coordinate to create a narrative against Trump and Sanders. Think about that: a political party controls the narrative being delivered by our media. That is Soviet Union style propaganda. We actually live in a dystopian state, right now.
• By coincidence, both Melania Trump and Hillary Clinton wore all-white outfits. If the media was actively working against Trump and for Clinton, we would expect the media's reaction to essentially the same outfit to be very different. And of course it was, looking at this juxtaposition of the typical media responses. And this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. There are plenty examples of the opposing responses being emitted from the same news organization, such as here. When Hillary wears white, it echoes the women's suffrage movement; when Melania wears it, it is a subtle nod to white supremacy. This is coming from mainstream establishment media.
• After Trump joked that the Russians should turn over Clinton's emails, the media again erupted that Trump was proposing that another state compromise US national security. There is some debate as to whether Trump's comments were a careless off-handed comment, a clever trick to get the media talking again about Hillary's email controversy (they did), or a brilliant ruse to get them to admit Hillary's emails are a threat to national security (they did). Trump understands their bias and plays it to maximum effect.
•  Pat Smith is the mother of a Marine who was killed in Benghazi. She has loudly and publicly blamed Hillary Clinton for the security failure at the US consulate, and for lying about the event afterwards, and then "treating her like dirt." Rather than talk about Hillary's disastrous actions in Libya (the most significant of her vaunted tenure as SoS), the Democratic/media alliance decided they needed a countering bereaved military parent. Enter Khizr Kahn who spoke at the DNC and has been given maximum buzz hype.
  
  As you've probably heard, his son was a Marine Captain and was killed in Iraq. The narrative being pushed is that, if Trump had his way, the US would lose out of heroes like Khan, to our detriment. But that is so wrong for so many reasons. Khan was killed by Islamic radicals 12 years ago in a war authorized by Clinton. If anything, it underscores both Trump's claims that radical Islam is a serious threat to Americans, and that Hillary's decision to authorize the Iraq was a colossal mistake. It always assumes that the media's consumers are very misinformed on Trump's immigration proposals (a fair assumption given all the work they've done to instill that misinformation). So this gives Trump another chance to reiterate that policy to Americans. In fact, the whole thing is kind of bizarre, in that upon analysis it only underscores many of Trump's arguments. And last but not least, Khan is an Muslim activist, who argues for Sharia law, lobbies for increased Muslim immigration to the US, and works for a law firm connected to the Clinton Foundation and the Saudi government. Pat Smith has specific reason to target Clinton; Khan is looking for any leverage for political gain.

What we're seeing is a media that's getting desperate. In all these cases, the headlines which scream proof of how horrible Trump is, actually incriminate Clinton and the media on closer scrutiny. At this point they are not even trying to hide it. Just like Clinton isn't even trying to hide her corruption when she immediately hired Debbie Wasserman Schultz to she was forced out of the DNC after her corruption was exposed by Wikileaks. They're just hoping to sink some anti-Trump headlines into the collective American psyche, and move onto the next debacle before the dust settles. This isn't unprecedented. Remember the "incubator babies" they used to justify the first Iraq war, or the false 9/11 connection they used to justify the second Iraq war. The media is free to promote any lie it wants.

The big lie that we're seeing now is that Clinton got a big boost from the convention and is now leading Trump again. I don't believe it. She's canceling campaign events now due to lack of interest. Her last one had less than a hundred. Reuters, supposedly the gold standard of non-partisan reporting, is not only changing their polling formula to make Clinton look better (such as barely representing those under 35, but is actually going back and changing previous polling results. This is straight out of 1984. Changing the historical record. The only difference is that instead of being directly controlled by the ruling party, the propaganda arm is being indirectly and clandestinely controlled by the ruling party. 

Despite all their efforts, Trump is winning. He's up in the polls. He is routinely filling arenas past capacity. Expect them to get even more desperate as the weeks move towards November. Nothing is out of the question. I highly expect they'll declare Bill to be very ill, to give Hillary cover for skipping debates, or to make Trump look mean for attacking a sad woman in a public debate. They may find some other way to avoid the debates, like making unreasonable demands that Trump would never agree to. I suspect they'll keep pushing faulty polling, and we'll see wide disparities in polling from different sources. The polls that favor Trump will be called biased, but they will present the more accurate numbers.

Brexit will be a precursor to this election, which was heavily underrepresented in the polls. Then after the results, the media threw a huge tantrum, called all kinds of names and made dire predictions. They'll react the same this time. And the more desperate they get, the more people will stop believing them. This is all a good thing. Better to have your enemy out in the open than operating under cover.