Friday, October 20, 2017

Was the 2016 election covered fairly?

One of the myths that has already developed about the 2016 election was that the mainstream media somehow tried to help Clinton, or tried to hurt the so-called President or generally was not fair and objective in their coverage, with their liberal bias favoring Clinton. To me this is just an indication of our short memories and the bias against facts that underpin the beliefs of supporters of the so-called President.

The media, mainstream and fake news alike, helped get the so-called President elected. They did this by covering his campaign events to the exclusion of covering the rallies of other candidates. This is too obvious to dispute.

But they also covered him in a way that they did not cover the other candidates. His lies, irrationality, ugliness were normalized while the indiscretions of others were inflated even though the transgressions of the so-called President were magnitudes greater. He called other candidates "lying Ted Cruz", "little Marco", "crooked Hillary," and worse. He accused them of things we all know he had done many times over; he lied and insulted the families of other candidates.

He begged Russia to hack the emails of his opponents.

This is not a biased memory - it is fact. No other candidate in the history of the country got as many breaks and as much coverage and as much a second chance to display some competence, humanity and decency. He never showed any.

If the press were fair they would have ALWAYS noted he was a liar, a bigot, a misogynist and ignorant. That would have been fair and objective. By not doing so, they gave him a break that they gave no one else. Studies are coming out that support the obvious. Please read:

No comments: