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:
Post a Comment