The media made Trump, and now it’s breaking him

They say timing is everything. And when it comes to the sinking candidacy of Donald J. Trump, the timing couldn’t be any more perfect for his opponent.

But the timing we’re witnessing here should give any lucid American who isn’t hopelessly partisan pause.

{mosads}On one side there’s WikiLeaks, which has held most of its damaging information about Hillary Clinton until the not-so-surprising month of October. If Clinton were running against John Kasich or Marco Rubio or even Jeb Bush, the revelations of contact between the Department of Justice and her campaign during her email investigation, not to mention the controversies surrounding the Clinton Foundation and her mishandling of classified information at the State Department, would have her down at least 10-15 points right now and substantially in every swing state.

But as damaging as the WikiLeaks daily document dumps are, they’re no match in the media’s eyes for anything sensational regarding Trump. In his case, the powerful hits against the GOP nominee come right out of an ABC “Scandal” script:

On Sept. 23, just three days before the first 2016 presidential debate, tax documents from 1995 showing Trump may have not paid federal income taxes for 18 years were reportedly sent to The New York Daily News.

When the Daily News couldn’t verify the documents as real, they were sent to The New York Times instead —three days before the vice presidential debate.

Just two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 tape of Trump talking about grabbing women inappropriately — easily the most damaging piece of audio to emerge in a campaign season with plenty of bites to choose from — is sent to The Washington Post.

And on Wednesday, less than a week away from the third and final presidential debate, The New York Times published a story about two women who say the real estate magnate assaulted them decades ago. As luck would have it, publications such as the Palm Beach Post also published stories this week of other women coming forward to say the same thing happened to them decades ago.

To be clear, this column isn’t being written to discredit these women. But the bottom line is, without clear evidence, we’re in an ambiguous she-said, he-said stage. Nobody knows what happened. Of course that won’t stop most of the media making this into front-page, A-Block speculation under the guise of breaking news and “analysis.”

As for the “he-said” side, Trump is demanding the Times retract the story. Given that the executive editor, Dean Baquet, allows political reporters like Mark Leibovich to engage in quote approval by sources such as Hillary Clinton without any reprimand whatsoever — a clear violation of a practice banned by the alleged paper of record in 2012 — don’t hold your breath on a retract even being broached. 

The first presidential debate this year drew 84 million viewers. The second, on Sunday night, lost more than one-fifth of that number — about 18 million — who decided they didn’t need to watch another moment of character assassination by each of the candidates, who aren’t even broaching things like how to fix our education system, immigration policy, or the country’s exploding heroin epidemic in the U.S. — you know, the kind of issues everyday Americans might be a little interested in.

Hacked emails that would in any other year destroy a presidential candidate are being used with little effect against a Democratic candidate now on cruise control.  

Impeccably timed 21-year-old tax documents, 11-year-old “Access Hollywood” audio and even older alleged instances of sexual assault are being used with great effect against the Republican.

If you feel you need a shower or six after absorbing what this farce of an election has become, you’re not alone.

What we’re witnessing is disturbing to the point of scary.

And it’s one we’ll never recover from if trust means anything anymore. 

Concha is a media reporter for The Hill.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.