To my professional and personal shame, the biggest losers this fall are today’s media.

I spent the majority of my long working life writing by choice for major newspapers. I realized some years ago that we had raised three grown men with earnings from newspapers – born, doctored, clothed, fed, educated, entertained, traveled. Yet not one of them read a newspaper.

I was originally drawn to journalism because I wanted to tell stories. I always have. You could ask Mrs. Vydra who dominated Show and Tell in her sixth-grade class. For many years as a reporter, I wrote the stories of unknown people, their work, families, dreams, journeys, fears, setbacks, and comebacks in newspapers read by millions.

I suppose there was a bias in selecting those stories. They had to be interesting first off, and hopefully revealing of some larger issue at play in this and other countries, not always pleasant issues. I tried to tell them in sympathetic, entertaining, yet honest, ways for readers to understand far away in distance and life experiences.

That often required convincing people to trust me, a sudden stranger entering their lives briefly, asking too many questions to share details that were personal, painful, and, to their own eyes, of no consequence to readers they would never know. I enjoyed the challenge, often in the face of deadline pressures and tragic events.

That wasn’t the only way to report news. But it was my way. The people I wrote about and their stories were not always pleasant, cooperative, or understanding. But my personal judgments didn’t matter. It was their story, not mine. Attempted fairness was key.

Today’s media is far, far different. I date the start of change from the crusading Watergate era when journalistic role models were out to catch bad actors. And they did, thankfully.

That’s always been part of U.S. journalism’s role and that’s why the Founding Fathers created a then-unprecedented series of constitutional protections for these independent government watchdogs.

But somehow, to my eyes, over the last maybe 30 years, fixing society came to be the dominant thrust of journalists. That was the way to success and recognition. And it seemed to carry a license to tell stories the way they wanted, never mind any strictures of truth.

This is a contemptible arrogance, that an individual press badge somehow conveyed the power and justification to see larger truths and the right to distort and ignore details and contexts in pursuit of a perceived greater good.

This self-anointed power, in my opinion, springs from decades of newspaper monopolies. Absent fear of active competition, too many editors saw themselves as news pharmacists.

They labored all day behind the newsroom counter determining the content and mix of news to administer to obedient consumers who lined up to get their daily dose of news each morning, like orange juice.

When I first started writing online, where reader interest can be measured real-time, a print editor once asked me in a meeting, “You mean you would actually post a story online just because you think people would want to read it?”

I probably shouldn’t print my response here. But it was in the affirmative. His superior attitude helps explain why newspaper print circulation will continue circling the drain until the tub is empty.

The sudden emergence on the Internet of thousands of online sources for news and opinion was a fundamental shock for traditional news outlets. Many are still attempting recovery.

And it created a fundamental challenge, yet important new responsibility, for news consumers now faced with actively needing to select their own reliable sources instead of having the product handed to them by editors who knew more.

As in any open marketplace, not all of these news/opinion vendors, shall we say, follow health department guidelines to protect their products from contamination. Exciting sells. So does blood. And, of course, sex. Anything to get browsing readers to click on a story and enhance the numbers that advertisers are willing to pay for.

My particular concern about online news is the blind headlines that play on impulsive curiosity to lure clicks: “Biden Makes a Surprising Decision.” “You Won’t Believe What Hillary Just Said.” “Trump Did What?” On principle, I take a Hard Pass. Plenty of other places to get news without such ploys.

But what else has changed is legacy media’s collective decision to dump its attempt at old-fashioned neutrality and take sides in political coverage.

You may have noticed that the diligent, daily compilation of presidential lies by the Washington “Democracy Dies In Darkness” Post did not survive the transition from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. Admittedly, Biden’s serial lies and fictitious claims would occupy a team of counters and psychiatrists.

As they so often do, the seasoned editorialists over at Issues & Insights eloquently detailed such coverage of Joe Biden:

In the span of a few days, he called Kamala Harris a “great president,” got disoriented at an event on the White House lawn, claimed that his student loan giveaway was a law passed by Congress not his own executive order, misstated the name of Britain’s new prime minister, suffered another embarrassing teleprompter failure, appeared to nearly drift off into sleep during a TV interview, got confused about how to exit a stage he’d climbed up just moments before.

A neutral press would be demanding answers from the White House about Biden’s condition. They’d be talking to experts about the grave risks of having a president suffering from dementia in charge. They’d have their pollsters ask the public about its concerns with Biden’s mental health.

But, of course, none of that has happened because it could hurt the liberal leader and the causes he and his media support.

This is not an isolated incident. The same media ignored the scandalous and corrupt evidence on Hunter Biden’s laptop for two years until the Big Guy was safely in office. Yet they instantly jumped on details of the Russiagate hoax because it could damage Donald Trump.

They’ve been trying to ignore the mental and vocal impact of John Fetterman’s massive stroke. The Democrat wants to represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate, where the ability to speak coherently and read has been a traditional work requirement.

But honestly chronicling the depth of Fetterman’s disabilities could help elect a Republican, giving the GOP control of that chamber.

The same intentional distortions are obvious in coverage of voters’ top concern now, the country’s devastating inflation, highest in 40 years since another Democrat’s presidency. Instead, we get minutely-detailed coverage of the Jan. 6 committee’s transparent effort to prevent a future Trump campaign.

A favored old radio comedy had a reporter interviewing the police chief. “Commissioner, what about crime?”

“Crime?” he replied. “It’s going great.”

Alas, U.S. crime has worsened, especially in cities long-ruled by Democrats. But detailed coverage of that plague and its lethal impacts on average citizens is hard to find. Same for the open southern border, where 2.7 million illegals entered the country in this past fiscal year, four times the number in Trump’s last year.

This past week saw revelations by a left-leaning site that social media representatives have been meeting regularly with Biden administration officials to receive directions on what they should censor from posts and comments critical of this president. RedState was among the targets.

Think about that, government colluding with media in a democracy. You won’t see much about this either in mainstream media.

Not surprisingly, polls have shown media trust and support cratering across the political spectrum. Gallup says that’s now the second lowest in its history. An Issues & Insights poll found that fully 58 percent of Americans now have little or no trust in traditional media.

Beyond that, the plethora of bad news and fear porn the last few years presented with such obvious excitement and even delight appears to be fueling a growing news disconnect with many simply opting out of the constant assault of negative stories.

Trust is easily and quickly shattered, but quite difficult to rebuild. Ask any divorce lawyer. If you’re into cheering for one partisan pack over another these days, such polls might bring brief joy.

But if you’re concerned for the long-term health and future of our nation with common values shared and reinforced through mutual respect and communications, such ongoing corrosion of trust is beyond ominous.