So how does CBS feign neutrality when an anchor gets choked up at the thought of a Trump victory? The answer is easy: The public is told to ignore it and trust a journalist who cannot even discuss the election results without fighting back tears.

That message was even more jarring at Scientific American. Once a popular, science-based publication, the magazine has been increasingly criticized for its political slant and pseudoscientific views. Much of the blame has focused on Laura Helmuth, the editor-in-chief.

After the election, Helmuth had a raving, profanity-laden meltdown on social media.

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN EDITOR BLASTS ‘F---ING FASCISTS’ WHO ELECTED DONALD TRUMP

She called Gen X voters f**king racists." She dismissed "solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f--k them to the moon and back." She even added a condemnation to her fellow Indianans as "racist and sexist" for voting for Trump.

The postings dispensed with faux claims of neutrality, and many again raised long-standing concerns over the magazine's direction. Helmuth responded by deleting the comments and just telling readers to effectively forget she said it.

In fairness, Helmuth was trying to separate her personal views from those as the editor-in-chief. However, her "expression of shock and confusion about the election results" parallels what many have objected to the political turn of the magazine in recent years.

In 2020, Scientific American broke a 175-year tradition of non-partisanship to endorse Joe Biden in the presidential election. Conservatives have complained about the tenor and thrust of the magazine, which was once entirely apolitical.

The point is that Helmuth's rage is not confined to her social media account.

The public is again being told to ignore the man behind the curtain. However, much of the public has already left.

As I discuss in my recent book, The Indispensable Right, many in the media and journalism schools expressly abandoned both objectivity and neutrality years ago. The result has been a plummeting of revenue and readership as the public turns to new media and other sources for their news.

At the Washington Post, publisher and CEO William Lewis put it bluntly by telling the staff, "Let’s not sugarcoat it…We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Nevertheless, almost immediately after Trump won, the Post ran an editorial titled "The second resistance to Trump must start now."

The problem is that, when "people are not reading your stuff," fewer may be inclined to join a second resistance after rejecting the first resistance. Many are likely to doubt that a CBS anchor who could not even discuss the Trump victory without losing his composure will view the Trump Administration objectively in the coming years.

Even fewer are likely to believe assurance from figures like Helmuth that she will regain "editorial objectivity" after denouncing anyone supporting Trump as dumb racists.

Of course, if you believe that over half of the country is "dumb," you may believe that they will just forget post-election meltdowns.

Maybe they are right. It was once said that "chumps prefer a beautiful lie to an ugly truth." The problem is that, if this election proved one thing, it is that many voters clearly felt like they are being played as chumps by the media and political establishment.

Pulling back the curtain did not work for the Great Oz, and it will work even less for the legacy media.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY