According to The Hill , “The Media” will be an unlikely Hillary Clinton ally in the 2016 election. Yes, really. “Unlikely” is the word they chose.

I like The Hill. They have a long track record of solid analysis and, while I may not always agree with their conclusions, I usually respect how they arrived at them. So the fact that they managed to publish a completely incoherent, reality-defying, piece about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with the media is utterly baffling.

It’s not unusual for Republicans to feel slighted by political reporters, most of whom vote Democratic in presidential election years. In a 1992 survey of Washington-based journalists, 89 percent said they voted for Bill Clinton , while 7 percent backed George H.W. Bush and 2 percent supported Ross Perot.

Many pundits had to eat their words when they predicted Trump would implode and had no shot at winning the Republican nomination. Now that the celebrity businessman is the presumptive nominee, Trump critics in the media, including some on the right, don’t want him to win in November.

Much of the political media disdain Trump, and that feeling is palpable in green rooms in New York City and Washington, D.C. The thought of a Trump presidency simply scares political journalists for a number of reasons, including his proposal to “open up” libel laws to make it easier to sue media companies.

The Democratic presidential front-runner has had a long, contentious relationship with the press, most notably in her 2008 run for the White House. But 2016 figures to be much different.

Hillary Clinton has an unlikely ally in her bid to defeat Donald Trump this fall: the media.

But it is rare for the Clintons to have the media on their side.

I’m not sure what’s more amazing about this. Is it that they’re actually trying to make this argument, or is it that it actually took two people (including the Hill’s Editor in Chief Bob Cusack) to cobble together something so staggeringly wrongheaded?

In what universe is has the media ever been anything other than a Clinton ally? OK, fine. You can make an argument that they ditched Hillary for Obama in 2008, but aside from that, the mainstream press has served dutifully as Bill and Hillary’s best friend, defender, and propagandist ...for decades.

The press keeps Clintons out of jail.

The press buries Clinton scandals unless absolutely dragged kicking and screaming into it.

The press pretends the Clintons’ impossible alibis are actually worthy of serious discussion.

The press repeats, promotes, and validates Hillary’s lies on a daily basis.

The press vilifies, targets, investigates, and attempts to destroy all of the Clintons’ political opponents.

My God, throughout the nineties, it was a running joke that CNN stood for “The Clinton News Network.” But now we’re supposed to believe that - somehow - none of that happened and the Clintons have always had a contentious relationship with the media? That’s simply insane.

The fine folks at the Hill should ask themselves the following question:

If a Republican presidential candidate was the subject of a federal investigation due to a years-long effort to hide her daily communication in an unsecured home server while, at the same time, rumors were swirling about her husband’s liaisons with child sex slaves, how would the media be treating them?

Answer that, and then tell us how “contentious” their relationship with the Clintons is.