If there's one thing at which the media excels, it's examining itself after some perceived failure.  And then after some generalized introspection and expressions of regret -- never a specific assertion of journalistic negligence or wrongdoing against a media figure or organization or a specific promise to improve its practices, its back to business as usual.  

Now The New York Times is wondering how, or if, news organizations should cover Donald Trump's tweets as important breaking news.  Of course they should -- it's what he wants, it's easy, and it's utterly meaningless.  What could be better for an American public that can't tell the different between reality and a reality show?

But if the Times is serious, and if it can get some general agreement among other media organizations, it really should give those tweets just as much coverage as they deserve:  A tweet in return.

It should be clear by now that Donald Trump's words mean nothing.  They don't serve to convey real information or real understanding of the President-elect.  They serve only to manipulate a voracious media and a gullible public.  

Donald Trump gets Carrier corporation to "save" 1000 jobs in Indiana, gets three days of positive news coverage, and satisfies his base that he's already making good on his promises.

Few know or care about the details of the Carrier.  What did Indiana Governor Pence promise to the company?  What did President-elect promise -- or threaten?  Does it matter that Trump railed against state incentives during the campaign?

Donald Trump gets credit for the stock market's exuberant rise after his election.  No one seems to notice or care that it's only slightly higher than it's peak under President Obama.  Has the President ever gotten credit for it's rise?  Maybe by some, but cursing Wall Street has been a bipartisan effort during his administration.

President Obama saves the American automobile industry, gasoline prices are low, real wages are beginning to rise after years of decline, and the people of Michigan tell Democrats to go to hell.  But then, even most Democrats are far more comfortable complaining about income inequality than they are about the economic recovery of the last eight years.  

Granted, the President's record of achievement on the economy has not been an unmitigated success, and the public's memory is short.  But he would have been helped with better media coverage.

For eight years, Democratic carping has encouraged the very sourness that helped elect Trump.  Yes, things aren't great among working-class voters in the heartland, but they are a lot better than they were.  That should have meant a better Democratic showing in traditionally blue states.  But Democrats have so downplayed expectations that the public had lost their hope.  

There are a lot of lessons here for Democrats, among them how to milk a story:  Build up a challenge and create some drama over what and when the challenge will be resolved.  When you come running to the rescue, the media will come running to you.  Make promises, make it look like you're accomplishing something, and the people will reward you.  Most important, make sure you're the only story in town.

He sets the media agenda.  He sets the public mood.

In some respects, people expect so little from Donald Trump that anything he does will be a pleasant surprise.  But the economy may grow, simply based on how Donald Trump has changed the public's perceptions.  He's got it good:  his supporters want economic growth, and so do his detractors.  The public will welcome whatever he does -- or seems to do.  Skeptics will just be seen as spoil-sports.  

Democrats can't just talk about his hypocrisy or hope for his failure.  They have to offer an agenda, make real promises, hold the media hostage to their ideas, and make their local accomplishments national stories.  And don't let anyone take credit for ideas that are yours.