Co-blogger ASM826 is right: the Media won't ever apologize for the last two years of politically motivated disinformation and propaganda. They don't want to; they see themselves as warriors for the Left, and have been for decades. I ran across this sort of by accident, but it is from all the way back in 1999 - Charlie Rose interviewing Christopher Hitchens about Bill Clinton. Hitchens goes on a eloquent length about just how nasty a piece of work Clinton is, and Rose spends most of an hour not exactly defending Clinton but trying everything he could think of to paint Clinton as a politician like any other. Excuses are made, then more excuses, then more.
There's no "gotcha" moment, just a long exchange of what can only be described as intellectual trench warfare on Rose's part. Even twenty years ago he would go to the mat defending the indefensible. Clinton may have been an SOB, but he was Rose's SOB.
Hitchens even points out the difference between how the Press treated Clinton vs. how they treated Reagan or Bush the elder. This interview is from decades ago, and the arguments are as fresh as today. The Media is happy doing what it does, which is shilling for Democrats and smearing Republicans.
And remember, Hitchens was very much a man of the Left in 1999. He wrote a regular column for the far left The Nation. It's probably why Rose was so respectful to him - courtesy extended to a fellow leftie.
And so to the Media's declining power. As they have become increasingly and more visibly partisan over the decades they have shed viewers and readers. First the conservatives, then the moderates, and now liberals. It's clear that the Media's "product" is an increasingly obvious drivel, and so the question is how many people they will be able to keep on the Progressive Reservation. It will be some - those who want to stay. Call it 20% of the population, that's their market.
It's enough to keep them in business, as long as leftist billionaires keep a few Media outlets afloat. Between these sugar daddies and the 20% core market for propaganda that's a stable enough financial foundation for the machine to keep running. The only danger for them - and we will have to see how this plays out - is if the concept of "Fake News" becomes so embedded throughout the voting public that the billionaires decide that it's a waste of money (i.e. the investment doesn't produce results at the polls). Next year's election may prove instructive, or may not.
But I don't see any change coming. The Media doesn't want to change. They're happy doing what they do, even when caught out in as transparent a scam as this Russia Collusion mess. Their financial patrons are likely disappointed in the outcome but it's hard to see the money drying up. The remaining hard core 20% of Media's market wants drool-worthy propaganda.
For now, the situation looks stable. Why would we expect any change?