Comparing the media of today with the Banner is insulting to the Banner. I do agree that there is an Ellsworth Toohey on almost every paper and their effect is very noticeable. the problem is not the Tooheys of the world it is the idiots that won't (can't) think for themselves and use reason to make decisions based on facts they observe.
Example is todays unemployment rate. It went down at last report. Not because more people got jobs but because more people quit looking for jobs. Most people see the evidence of this type of thing and know what is going on (That's why trump took 31 states). It is the Toohey followers that got burned and will continue to get burned because they won't open their eyes and think for themselves

The first campaign of the BANNER was an appeal for money for a charitable cause. Displayed side by side, with an equal amount of space, the BANNER ran two stories: one about a struggling young scientist, starving in a garret, working on a great invention; the other about a chambermaid, the sweetheart of an executed murderer, awaiting the birth of her illegitimate child. One story was illustrated with scientific diagrams; the other--with the picture of a loose-mouthed girl wearing a tragic expression and disarranged clothes. The BANNER asked its readers to help both these unfortunates. It received nine dollars and forty-five cents for the young scientist; it received one thousand and seventy-seven dollars for the unwed mother. Gail Wynand called a meeting of his staff. He put down on the table the paper carrying both stories and the money collected for both funds. "Is there anyone here who doesn't understand?" he asked. ... [The Fountainhead pp. 408 & 409]

Be sad.
The media grasping at straws in defeat as they come up with more and more asinine and ridiculous excuses for their candidate's massive loss saddens me at the obviousness of their loss of credibility. We no longer have a national press that reports news, only advocacy. Fake news is often formulated on social media and can be expected by astute readers. But, when it is taken up by the likes of the Washington Post and New York Times, it is farther along than the beginning of the end.

Seems like it was always this way, and perhaps now more obvious.

The question is how will they behave as the economy improves under Trump. Typically, the new president enjoys favorable coverage for a little while, then late in the first term or during the second term, everyone turns against them.
Will Trump get a benefit from the delayed reaction, and "cooler" ramp up and perhaps subsequent longer positive, or will the media stay negative on him due to socialist bias the whole time?
I think it is up to wise people (like us?) to help provide objective evidence of success for all people from the actions, such that properly positive actions/results can be highlighted.

It is tempting to compare Trump to one of Rands heroes. Here is a question, "Under what circumstances would an objectivist run for public office?"

Curious! Is Trump assembling a cabinet or is John Galt assembling the captains of industry for Atlantis?

And with Donald J. Trump as Howard Roark, who, as before, wins his case despite the Banner.

Well, the media has gone beyond good and evil. It is the authoritatively self-proclaimed ubermensch class. The will to power is strong with this one.