Even from the most neutral writers, no one is pretending that the rhetoric used during this election cycle is “business as usual.” The fact of the matter is that the situation has changed. Donald Trump has not only challenged the extent of party loyalty from the GOP, but has brought to question the very notion of journalistic neutrality. The New York Timesbrings to light the struggle that political thought leaders have encountered given the moral roadblock that the Republican nominee has put in front of them. They are finding it increasingly impossible to remain impartial.

Although Donald Trump is hardly the first candidate to which personal attacks have been directed, it goes without saying that his attitude, demeanor and temperament are unprecedented in the U.S. presidential election. Trump has repeatedly used faulty statistics, incendiary language, and intentionally vague pleas for violence; all while claiming the media was distorting his message. However, his message is fairly objective.

Last week, Trump hinted at a possible civilian uprising to Secretary Clinton’s potential Supreme Court appointments in the event she wins the election. To rectify his signature flare for controversy, Trump has taken to bandaging his statements with tagging on “probably” or trailing off with an “I don’t know…”

So the real question is are these statements slips of the tongue or is he speaking vaguely solely to minimize backlash? That is where journalism comes in. What is clear is that Donald Trump has begun to abandon conviction and adopt more casual, yet equally precarious, syntax and diction. He has reached a point that if a journalist were to interpret his language outside of what appears obvious to most mainstream media sources, that journalist would be twisting words for the sake of either neutrality, or reporting in Trump’s favor, thus completely sacrificing the objectivity of his statements.

This dilemma has left right wing media with two choices: either focus on the attack of the opposition (given that Hillary is not without her shortcomings) or just stay quiet. The Trump campaign has written off almost every controversial statement as either a misunderstood joke or a twist of intention. But for how long can journalists give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt? As a serious candidate and potential U.S. president, when will he start to say what he means?

This fact alone is enough to cause more concern for the media than the substance of his speeches themselves. There is no partisan issue behind speaking in code. It has come to a point where it seems that only Donald Trump knows what Donald Trump means, leaving him to be objectively criticized by nearly every news outlet in one form or another.

The media has not been kind to Donald Trump, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. To be fair, he has not given them much to work with. Constantly redacting and adjusting statements to clarify intent and has left his supply of pro-Trump journalists all but dried up. Given his recent dip in the polls, it is becoming clear that his lack of favorability in the media will be his demise.

Contrary to some beliefs, no journalist, right, left or neutral, enjoys reporting falsehoods. The right-wing media would love to be a friend to Trump, but their loyalty is being tested. If he wants to truly portray this “great” utopian America he plans to erect if elected, he should start by giving the journalistic world something – anything – positive to talk about.