I'm curious about whether you listen to "The Daily" put out by the New York Times. It runs on my local public radio station in the evening. They try to be perceived as slanting liberal, but when you listen to them carefully, the subtext is that Republicans control everything so why even try. They tried very, very hard to throw the midterms to Republicans with this, and when it turned out their "coverage" was "wrong", did they introspect about why that was and change their coverage for the runoff in Georgia? No, they spent the run-up to that election talking about how Warnock's chances were very slim and it would take a miracle for him to overcome the advantages that idiot supposedly had.

I'd encourage you to pull up their episode about Stacey Abrams on your local podcasting app and listen to it carefully. If they had cut it off right after the interview where she wiped the floor with their biased interviewer, she would have come out in a very positive light, but they spent the rest of the episode dogging on her. I firmly believe if the media hadn't done this type of garbage, she would have won. Obviously she couldn't win the first election because her opponent was _administering_ it.

By the same token, you could argue that the inflation and the bull market right before the election were ginned up, not directly by the wealthy, but by media coverage that hoped if they said the sky was falling often enough, they could get it to temporarily fall far enough to influence the election.