One consequence of the 24/7 digital news revolution is that the unending appetite for attention-getting information has given those with outrageous remarks easy access to ongoing media visibility.
What’s interesting about the Trump campaign right now is that during the primary election his ability to use crude comments to stay in the news was considered star-producing free publicity. But now in the general election that same free publicity is being labeled by Trump as personal attacks on him. So he is attacking the very hand that fed him.
The reality, however, is that attacking the news media inevitably is a no-win situation. Certainly there are legitimate media issues to discuss. But to attack the media head-on will soon sound desperate and eventually reinforce a perception of instability.
What’s sad in this case is that those people supporting Mr. Trump have legitimate feelings of being left out of the American dream. They thought they found someone who can fix their situation. Persistent loyalty through times like this, however, is comparable to battered people who hang on to someone because they just don’t know what else to do.
Also, sooner or later those who grab attention with constant crude and outrageous attacks, and then suddenly sound more informed by reading words clearly written by others, will find that contrasting pictures and sound bites will show just how shallow, insincere, dishonest, and frightening all this might be.
In the final analysis, educating the public about legitimate digital news media issues is important, but a full frontal attack on reporters will inevitably be deadly.
Larry D. Lauer 
Yes the attack on the media seems to ultimately damage a presidential candidate like Trimp, but a separate issue is the long term impact on the public’s view and appreciation of the role and function of the media.