The mainstream media is beating themselves up for not accurately predicting the results of the presidential election. (For example, see this.) Failing to pick the winner was clearly a failure. And it may take pollsters a generation to recover (which in politics apparently means two years, the time between election cycles).
But predicting election results was not why our Founding Fathers voted for the First Amendment. They had a slightly higher purpose in mind -- encouraging discussion that would result in an electorate that understood the issues at stake.
The media's abject failure to fulfill that duty is what should prompt an apology -- and a firm commitment to do better.
Everyone knows the media cover elections like a horse race, who's ahead, who's behind. Thinking back on the campaign coverage, I can't remember a single instance when a reporter -- or debate moderator -- pressed a candidate to really explain any hot button issue. Not his or her bumper sticker position on the issue, but its causes and the pro's and con's of alternative solutions.
So will the media do better? Not judging by CNN's post-election interview of Bernie Sanders.
Wolf Blitzer asked him twice: "Are you running in 2020?"