I suspect that I am like a lot of people in that I do not read electoral news cycles too closely. There is only so much lurid trash my eyeballs can take. However, the current slew of allegations against Donald Trump in the U.S. media (i.e. every TV network with the partial exception of Fox) is just incredible. As it happens, my gut instinct tells me that some or all of these allegations are probably true (though it is possible they could also be false), as Trump does come across as what the Yanks call a "horndog".
Whilst these stories are presented by the media in innocent terms, i.e. that the accused women just happened to be watching the second presidential debate on TV and were outraged when they saw Donald Trump lying, it's more than likely that the media were sitting on these stories and waiting to get a denial from Trump before publishing them. It was Anderson Cooper who, in the second presidential debate, asked Trump whether he had ever previously groped or kissed other women without consent, to which he belatedly answered that he never had. At that point, the women could "come forward" (i.e. the press could go ahead with their stories). You've now got two debate points against Trump: one, the allegation that he is a lecherous old man, and two the consequent allegation that he is a liar.
The stories do not need to be investigated or assessed as to whether or not they are true, the play being made is that the allegation alone is sufficient to damage Trump's image in the short time remaining before the actual vote. Presumably, the media have another set of allegations they are now sitting on which they will release after the third debate and just prior to the vote itself. In addition, the same media will give far less attention to the Wikileaks information alleging Clinton's corruption, for which she really should be jailed - for whatever else he may be wrong about, he is surely correct about that. This is not mere "bias" anymore, this is a systematic propaganda effort with the exclusion of allegations against one candidate, and an all consuming focus on allegations against the other candidate. Even if the allegations against Trump are all true, the more broadly important point is that much of the media, both in print and on TV (with a few partial exceptions, e.g. Fox) are acting as an extension of the Clinton campaign. Recall that it was Anderson Cooper of CNN who asked the set up question in that second presidential debate. And given Trump's status as "wild-card" political outsider, this close support with the Clinton campaign means that, in the event of a Clinton electoral victory, much of the U.S. media will have effectively become a puppet of the U.S. government.
I admire Donald Trump's politically incorrect attitude and his determination, even though, like most people I regard him as a banana republic candidate. But that is what the U.S. has become with the impending election of a known felon in Hillary Clinton. I hope Tim Newman is right when he says that U.S. voters in the swing states of Utah, Ohio and Florida (which, coincidentally is where the women making allegations against Trump apparently come from) will see through the media collusion with Clinton and vote Trump anyway, but I am doubtful.
One thing a Clinton electoral victory will mean however, is that the U.S. government cannot be expected to criticize media control and manipulation by the governments of China and Russia.
A second thing that a Clinton electoral victory could mean is that the U.S. inches one step further down the road to a second civil war; the government, media and ruling class is now quite open about holding much of the population in contempt.