"For any minimally conscious American citizen, it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the viciously dishonest Mainstream Media." -- Boyd D. Cathey, "The Tape, the Conspiracy, and the Death of the Old Politics", Unz Review
"The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary." --Donald Trump, Twitter
When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential candidate? What does that say about the media?
Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us? Is that the way democracy is supposed to work?
Check out this blurb from The Hill:
"The broadcast evening news programs ABC, NBC and CBS covered allegations against Trump by several women who claim he sexually assaulted them for more than 23 minutes on Thursday night. But revelations in the WikiLeaks dump of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta which included...sympathy for Wall Street, advocation for open borders and blatant examples of media collusion ...got a whole 1 minute and 7 seconds combined."
"Ratio of negative coverage of Trump to Clinton: 23:1
"In print on Thursday, it was no better. The New York Times had 11 negative stories on Trump"But zero on Clinton/WikiLeaks.
"Ratio: 11:0." (Media and Trump bias; Not even trying to hide it anymore, The Hill)
The article in The Hill also refers to a survey by the Washington Post and ABC News that asks participants six questions about allegations of sexual misconduct by Trump, but zero questions about Podesta's incriminating emails.
Is that what you call "balance"?
I should state out-front, that I don't plan to vote for either candidate, Trump or Clinton, so my claims of "bias" are not grounded in support for one candidate or the other. I am simply ticked-off by the fact that the media honchos have pulled out all the stops and are inserting themselves in the process to produce the outcome they want.
That's what you call "rigging" an election. When you turn on Washington Week (Gwen Ifil) on public TV and see an assembled panel of six pundits -- three conservatives and three liberals -- and all six turn out to love Hillary and hate Trump; you can be reasonably certain that the election is rigged, because that's what rigging is. Rather than providing background information about the candidate's position on the issues so voters can make an informed decision, the media uses opinion-makers to heap praise on one candidate while savagely denigrating the other. The obvious goal is to shape public opinion in the way that best suits the interests of the people who own the media and who belong to the establishment of rich and powerful elites who run the country, the 1 percent. In this case, the ruling class unanimously backs Hillary Clinton, that much is obvious.
Fortunately, the tide is turning on the mainstream media as people look to other, more reliable sources for their information. It should come as no surprise that people are more distrustful of media than ever before, and that that a great many feel that the media is conducting a brutal class war against ordinary working people. Surely, anyone who has followed economic developments at all in the last seven years, knows that the policies of the Fed have created a yawning chasm between rich and poor that is only getting worse as long as the levers of power stay in the hands of establishment politicians. Hillary Clinton is certainly the worst of these establishment politicos. Aside from being the most widely-reviled candidate the Democrats have ever nominated, she is the embodiment of political corruption and cronyism. How is it, you may ask, that someone like Clinton was able to nab "upwards of $225,000 per speech" from Goldman Sachs if she wasn't influence peddling?