http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump's victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.

This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there'd be a winking "we did it" feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.

So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.

And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.

It’s a profound failure of empathy in the service of endless posturing. There's been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from "heroin country" that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it's our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?

We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice.

That's the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they'll eventually shut up and get in line. It's similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits. Journalists exist primarily in a world where people can get shouted down and disappear, which informs our attitudes toward all disagreement.

I am an independent who did not vote for either Clinton or Trump, but I know and respect many people who supported and voted for each candidate.  I expected Clinton to win, but was not shocked by Trump's victory, because it became increasingly clear that many people who intended to vote for him were not disclosing their preference, even to friends and family members, due to apprehension about the predictable response from those who opposed Trump -- an immediate shutdown of all receptiveness to civil discourse or willingness to consider their reasons for choosing to vote for Trump.  Given the unpleasant prospect of being categorically labeled as a "deplorable" person without being afforded a fair opportunity to explain the legitimacy of the concerns unrelated to race or gender or religion or national origin or sexual orientation that motivated them to vote for a change, millions of  Americans -- including many well-educated, intelligent, and genuinely caring people -- kept their intentions to themselves, which is probably the main reason why most polls missed the mark.

Some here insist that there could be no justifiable reason to vote for Trump, given the fact that he received support from groups that were motivated by unwelcome attitudes about race or gender or religion or national origin or sexual orientation.  Based on my observation and interactions with many people who voted for Trump, I believe they did have legitimate concerns that justified their choice -- primarily concerns about the economy and the potential fiscal impact of certain policies that Hillary Clinton proposed to implement.  But regardless of whether you accept those concerns as a sufficient reason to vote for Trump, the more important point is that you are unwilling to even listen to their reasons -- indeed, you reject them as absolutely unworthy of consideration.  And I believe it is that very intolerance of differing views and values by liberal Democrats and their sympathizers in the media that drove many Americans to silently vote for Trump.  In short, they had no alternative, because no one else would give them the basic courtesy of listening to and considering their opinions.  

One further observation:  I was a "60s liberal," who campaigned for Hubert Humphrey, marched against the Vietnam War, and participated in protest vigils for civil rights.  In those days, we prided ourselves in our commitment to freedom of expression and a belief that all opinions should be heard so that they could be tested in the "marketplace of ideas."  If a position was right and rested on the true facts, it should be defensible when subjected to challenge, and should ultimately prevail over positions that were not as well founded.  Above all, though, every person was due the respect of having their position fairly heard and considered.  But today it seems that the 60s concept of "liberal" has been turned on its head, and those who profess to be liberal are defiantly intolerant of differing views that they deem "incorrect" or dismiss as "unreasonable," without even trying to listen and understand the other person's position.   What's most ironic to me is that these contemporary liberals profess to champion the value of "diversity" while adamantly resisting the expression of different views.  

Of course, many of those on the other side have shown themselves to be equally deaf and eager to condemn opposing ideas without listening.  The fact that I am old and nearing the end of my journey here does not cause me to be less concerned about the divisions that impede our progress as a nation and as a member of the world community -- or less frustrated by those on both sides who obstruct our ability to move forward on difficult issues by refusing to seek out and accept a reasonable, workable compromise.  To those on the Trump side, I would say: Be satisfied that your voice has been heard; now refrain from gloating and instead show those on the other side the same courtesy and consideration you wanted yesterday for yourself -- listen to their concerns, try to understand their fears, and assure them that they and their interests will not be cast aside.  To those on the Clinton/Sanders side, I would say: Stop labeling and insulting and refusing to accept as equals those who voted for change -- learn the valuable lesson that this election left to be absorbed:  that every person and their position deserves to treated with respect; and trust the sense of fundamental fairness that resides in the American people and our institutions to ensure the security of all.  Finally, to both sides, I would say:  Listen to one another, be considerate of those who do not agree with you, and be ever mindful of the fact that we have a collective responsibility to convey a better world to those to whom we leave it -- an objective that we cannot achieve as long as we are preoccupied with confronting one another with our differences.