Naturally, Donald Trump - who cannot take responsibility for anything that isn't a huuuge win for him - is blaming the "liberal media" for his trouble with women, nearly nonexistent newspaper editorial endorsements, falling poll numbers and probably even Vladimir Putin's recent cold-shoulder treatment.
The liberal media part plays right into Trump's hands with his shrinking base - in part because that segment of the Republican Party has always thought of the media as liberal.
We are anything but liberal.
In 2012, at least 10 large major daily newspapers endorsed Mitt Romney, and 12 endorsed Barack Obama, while three made no presidential endorsements as a matter of long-standing policy. Of the 22 or so that normally publish endorsements, that was about half recommending the conservative candidate.
As of a week ago, Mother Jones looked at endorsements among those same 25 newspapers: 21 had endorsed Hillary Clinton, three endorsed Libertarian Gary Johnson and one - USA Today, which had never before penned a presidential endorsement - wrote a "Not Trump" endorsement.
This should tell folks that the media has never been as liberal as the public traditionally believes. And it also should point up that this year's presidential endorsements have less to do with partisan or ideological concerns, and everything to do with character.
The problem isn't liberal vs. conservative. The problem is Trump.
Take the The Cincinnati Enquirer, for example. It had not endorsed a Democrat for president in nearly a century. But it turned to Clinton this year because, "Trump is a clear and present danger to our country Do we really want someone in charge of our military and nuclear codes who has an impulse control problem? The fact that so many top military and national security officials are not supporting Trump speaks volumes."
Then there is The Arizona Republic, which had never endorsed a Democrat for president since its founding in 1890: "Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads. That's beneath our national dignity. When the president of the United States speaks, the world expects substance. Not a blistering tweet."
The Dallas Morning News had not, until now, endorsed a Democrat for president in more than 75 years: Trump "plays on fear And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control."
The San Diego Union-Tribune had not endorsed a Democrat for president in its entire 148-year history: "Terrible leaders can knock nations off course . We cannot take that risk."
Most of those endorsement decisions were made well before the crudest of Trump's attitudes about women and his self-labeled "locker room banter" became public, and well-before his denial of putting action to words was called in doubt by at least nine women who said he touched them inappropriately without their consent.
Also in this past week, Trump has again repeatedly taken to Twitter and to rally stages to talk of "rigged" elections and the "liberal media." With those newest dog whistles, he demonstrates yet again why journalists - people motivated to do what we do because truth matters, because freedom of speech matters - don't trust him.
Increasingly, it seems likely voters are watching him and deciding they don't trust him either.
According to Washington Post reports, new polls are showing that states with no business being close battlegrounds for Clinton and Trump "suddenly" are "within the margin of error in credible polls." These are states such as Missouri, Alaska, Utah - maybe even Georgia. Meanwhile, states where Trump needs to win - Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina - "look as if they are slipping away from him," the Post reports.
Anyone who still doubts that the media is at best bipartisan and at worst clearly conservative need ask just these three questions.
Where was Trump's concern about the "liberal media" when he was part - present or in absentia - of every broadcast and new analysis of the primary campaigns, when the media followed his every burp and other candidates couldn't get a mention unless they tripped over their tongues? Where was Trump's concern when he won the primary in a field of 16 strong Republican wannabes? Where was Trump's gripe when virtually every newscast and newspaper column about Clinton referred to her as "a flawed" candidate and discussed ad nauseum so-called scandals that never rose to scandal?
If your answer was that voters (and the media) did not yet understand the lows of this tax-dodging, womanizing, racist, unhinged ego-maniac - and now they (we) do - you win the prize.
Perhaps more importantly, our nation wins - hopefully without any more of Trump's stain.