It's long been noted that if you ever see the media report on something that you have expertise in, you will always see that the reporting is poor to the extent that it shows almost no understanding of the issue at all.
If you are religious, you will notice the media screwing up the basic tenets of your religion. If you are scientist, you will notice the media completely misrepresenting the state of affairs in your area of research, and often even the basics of the scientific method itself. If you live in a swing state, you will notice that when the media visits your town every 4 years they can't pronounce any of the local place names correctly and that their description of your community in no way resembles anything that you see in your day to day life. And so on. If you have prior knowledge of what is being reported on, chances are very good that you'll notice that the reporting is inaccurate.
This isn't exactly a new insight. Michael Crichton discussed this when he coined the "Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect" in 2002 (fifteen years ago), but the idea had shown up in media criticism throughout the 90's. Thus everyone who has been paying attention to the media since that point should be aware that they are often inaccurate.
All that has happened recently is that their despair over Hillary's loss has caused them to drop all pretenses about what they are doing, so that the situation has become all but impossible to ignore. (Not that the pretenses were that strong before the election; for instance remember the reporting of the Gabby Giffords shooting or the Kermitt Gosnell case?)