This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'Both neutrality and objectivity were discarded years ago by many in journalism schools'

The media never were friendly to President Donald Trump during his first term, perhaps because their ideology aligned with Barack Obama's agenda, which was being deconstructed and replaced, and with Hillary Clinton, who was defeated in that presidential race.

Verbal violence against the president was common, and organized attacks were routine. Included were "reports" on the falsified "Steele dossier," the "Russia collusion" conspiracy and more.

It was during the four years between his terms that the media's attacks escalated, with its reporting on the various Democrat lawfare cases against Trump, the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago and more.

But now, in his second term, the media "hostility" to Trump has "moved into hyperdrive."

That's according to constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley.

He said "as expected," the media's treatment of Trump "resumed where it ended in the first time in outright warfare."

Now the Gridiron Club journalism dinner has confirmed it will omit its traditional toast to the U.S. president, instead toasting the First Amendment.

And the "open contempt" has gone to the level that the White House Correspondent's Dinner has invited a comedian "who promptly declared that no one wants Trump to come because no one wants to be in the same room with him."

"The media is doubling down on its identity as part of 'the resistance.' In the meantime, the public is rushing to new and alternative media for their information," Turley explained.

While his criticisms have included Trump over some of his statements, "the media has also been wrong in its unrelenting attacks and hostile stance toward the Trump administration."

He called out the media's move into "hyperdrive" when Joe Biden left the White House and Trump moved in.

"The press's hostility has only grown despite Trump's unprecedented access to reporters. He has allowed the greatest level of access to the media in decades, giving long interviews and press conferences," he explained. "One would think that this change in access would at least produce some interest in covering the White House with neutrality and objectivity. However, both neutrality and objectivity were discarded years ago by many in journalism schools."

His warning?

"The gratuitous insults on both sides do not bode well for the future relations. However, there is a difference in yielding to such impulses. Trump is a politician. The press is an institution. Regardless of how the subject of coverage may treat the media, there remains a professional and ethical obligation to report on stories fairly and objectively. Moreover, there are legitimate gripes against the media for its fostering false conspiracy theories and over-wrought rhetoric against Trump. Again, that does not mean that Trump is right to call the media the enemy of the people or recently to suggest that coverage should be treated as a crime. Trump only undermines his own case with such extreme positions. Yet, the media has far more to lose in engaging in tit-for-tat insults."

Media, instead of using the annual dinners to build bridges, now has "decided to use the events as a way of slapping back at Trump like hurt school children."

Turley pointed out, "The press remains at record lows in trust with the public. This is hardly going to help. It is a virtual invitation for the public, like Trump, to go elsewhere. The media is increasingly writing for each other rather than an increasingly disengaged public."