The media’s coverage of the 2016 election was the worst.

And – as usual – the New York Times led the pack in terms of bias against the GOP.

So readers were shocked when they received a surprising letter co-authored by the Times publisher and executive editor.

Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and Dean Baquet penned a letter to Times subscribers, apologizing for its poor coverage of the race.

Sulzberger and Baquet admitted their paper missed Trump’s appeal and needed to rededicate itself to fairness.

They write:

“When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?

As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our readers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.

Sincerely,

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher

Dean Baquet, executive editor”

The Times partisan cheerleading for Hillary Clinton led to a media environment where Trump’s coverage was negatively reported by 9 to 1.

Journalistic norms were violated as all pretenses of objectivity were thrown out the window in the name of defeating Donald Trump.

Many Americans questioned the media’s conduct during the election.

If they wanted to defeat Trump they could have started a Super PAC, issued an advocacy group, and worked directly for the Clinton campaign.

And while Clinton’s scandals did receive press coverage, many felt the rancor which permeated their coverage of Trump was absent.

The incredible bias displayed during the election is why the media’s favorability rating plunged to historic lows.

A study by the Media Insight Project, a partnership of The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute, found that just six percent of Americans had “a lot of confidence” in the news media.

But can the media objectively cover Trump after so actively campaigning for his defeat?

Many believe the media coverage over the next four years will ultimately prove a hopelessly compromised press, resulting in a primal scream of hatred.

Do you think the media can cover President-elect Trump fairly?

Let us know your thoughts in the comment section.