The word “press” should be honestly be replaced with “reporters.” Howard Fineman, columnist / pundit and former beat reporter, just wrote a column arguing that big name candidates don’t really need the “press” anymore.
There are deeper, more disturbing explanations. Changes to the media landscape—ideological fragmentation, the decline of newspapers, the rise of a feisty-but-still-atomized Web-based, digital press—have long since allowed candidates to pick whom they respond to, if anyone. And more and more, candidates construct their own faux-media entities, complete with video-streamed “reports” and Facebook outreach.
Nothing new here. From Fox News to AM Talk shows to Air America, the fragmented media is very convenient for candidates to speak with who agrees with them. But this trend is getting scarier for the following reasons: A) Candidates like Meg Whitman, Mitt Romney and Carly Fiorina are super-rich and can outspend their way to office and not “speaking” with the public through the media and generate their own facts and charts with TV ads; and B) the recent supreme court ruling opens the door to spending free-for-alls.
Frankly the media and press do / did themselves no favors. The MSM is highly unpopular among all political ideologies / ages / races. They pounce on inane, simple-to-understand issues (affairs, gaffes, patriotism).