[ben010783]

I don't think it is tone deaf. It is a very valid point. People that working politics and research it as their job heavily recommended one candidate over the other. It is getting easier to ignore the opinion of an expert and instead find a source that agrees with how you feel. People are looking for reasons to discredit sources that they don't agree with. Sloppiness and bias will always happen, but at some point you have to realize that a source like The Wall Street Journal is better than Brietbart and that blog posts and opinion pieces should not be given the same weight as investigative journalism.

[1_2__3]

As an aside, while the WSJ may have some credibility it's not that far away ideologically from Bretibart. In particular I was reading an article there recently about the Wells Fargo scandal and despite it not being an editorial the entire article was essentially a defense piece for the executives. By no measure was it even an attempt at even-handed journalism, it was straight-up advocacy masquerading as news.

[hga]

Like, oh, this? "Wells Fargo Receives Laughable ‘Punishment’ for Massive Criminal Fraud": http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09/29/29-sep...

Breitbart is most certainly not part of the Establishment that The Wall Street Journal is.

[Inconel]

In theory I would like to agree with you that it is indeed a good idea to take the opinions of experts in to consideration when deciding on such complex issues. I suppose my disagreement lies in whether I can really consider many of these people experts when it comes to the motivations of poor rural white voters. The US in an enormous country and I think we are far more geographically, economically, and culturally segregated than we like to admit. Based on what I've read and heard from journalists in the week prior to, and even more so after the election, and I admit that I may well be wrong in my perception of the situation, I don't get the feeling that these journalists have any meaningful insight into the experiences of poor rural workers. This seems to be a growing problem where two very different populations, the rural working class and the more cosmopolitan urban dwellers, have very little interaction with one another. I think it can be very difficult to empathize with those you don't understand, and certainly very easy to demonize those for the same reason.

[ben010783]

I can see how rural America might not connect with sources like the Washington Post and the New York times, but there were also recommendations from publications like Birmingham News and Falls Church News-Press. The local papers are more likely to understand their lives. The people going to the internet may actually be doing the opposite by taking in recommendations from national political sites rather than local editorial boards.

I also agree with how populations don't interact with each other, but it may be even worse than you describe. Even in urban areas, those in the suburbs seem to be more disconnected with those in the inner city.

[Torgo]

Check to see how many "local" newspapers are owned by Advance Publications or Gannett.

[crdoconnor]

To be honest I think the wailing and caterwauling by establishment mouthpieces (NYTimes, WSJ firmly fall in this camp) probably only cemented the resolve of the average Trump voter.

They're very well aware that their interests and the interests of the owners of the NYTimes and the WSJ are diametrically opposed.

[CaptSpify]

> heavily recommended one candidate over the other.

I think a big question about that is why they recommended one over the other. There's a lot of distrust of those recommendations, and speculation that they are recommending the candidate that helps their own demographic, rather than the US at large.