Opinion: The media’s false equivalency problem during the 2016 campaign

To the editor: In his fine review of skewed reporting on this year’s presidential campaign, Thomas E. Patterson posits that the “media had a strong bias toward negative coverage and didn’t make a concerted effort to explain the relative magnitude of the allegations leveled at the two candidates.” (“Did the media help Trump win? Look at the numbers,” Opinion, Dec. 7)

Granted, negative coverage couldn’t be avoided, not when both candidates were so flawed that voters’ concern wasn’t about which one would most help the country, but rather which one would do the least harm.

Hence reporters breathlessly passed along every new disparaging detail that hackers disclosed about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. Fine, but they provided no perspective. Few bothered to analyze the relative detriment to be expected from Clinton’s email indiscretions versus Donald Trump’s glaring shortcomings.

The media may have profited nicely from its dubious reporting on the campaign, but our country likely will pay a steep price.

Robin Groves, Pacific Palisades

..

To the editor: Author Robert Fulghum has written a number of popular books of advice for daily life. One of his more famous quotes was this:

“One of life’s best coping mechanisms is to know the difference between an inconvenience and a problem. If you break your neck, if you have nothing to eat, if your house is on fire — then you’ve got a problem. Everything else is an inconvenience. Life is inconvenient. Life is lumpy. A lump in the oatmeal, a lump in the throat and a lump in the breast are not the same kind of lump.”

During the campaign, many journalists apparently did not know the difference between Trump and Clinton. There really should be a lot of soul searching.

Donna Handy, Santa Barbara

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook