Categories
Quick Analysis

Major Media Abandons Ethics

In analyzing presidential campaigns, a review of the quality of media reporting is vital. It’s the only practical avenue the public has to learn of the character and positions each candidate offers.

For several decades, the voters have been consistently ill-served by a biased press that, rather than fulfilling its ethical duty to objectively and accurately relay the views and qualities of those seeking office, abuses its position to further its own point of view.

While many past elections have seen inaccurate and biased coverage, this year’s combination of substantially failing to thoroughly examine the legal and ethical violations of Hillary Clinton, while reaching a frenzy of hysteria about the unusual style of Donald Trump, is in a class of its own.

Consider these two offerings from the August 29 edition of Time magazine:

From an essay by Eddie S. Claude Jr.: “…we have vomited up the likes of Donald Trump…”

The same issue contains this in a column by Joel Stein: “Old people aren’t good at voting…old people vote shortsightedly…[they are] more likely to vote for Donald Trump.”

As part of its standard and concerted effort to discredit candidates who don’t subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxy they adhere to, major media outlets have done almost everything in their power to portray the GOP candidate as an uninformed buffoon. While some explain this s a reaction to Trump’s unprecedented mode of campaigning and his politically incorrect mode of self-expression, even a cursory review of past presidential contests reveals a clear and consistent pattern of media character assassination of non-leftists contenders.
Over 30 million men in the US alone have some form of purchase cheap cialis http://greyandgrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/WTC-Monitoring-Program-Oct-2010.pdf ED or reduced sex drive. These stop signs are actually directing you to come to action? This medicine starts producing levitra 60 mg http://greyandgrey.com/kevin-m-plante/img_2122/ results within 1 hour. The generic formula works levitra generika probe super potential when it comes to fighting against male impotence. For the individual member to survive he has to pledge his allegiance to the organization. cheap sildenafil uk
Recall the over-the-top disdain the chattering class exhibited for George W. Bush. The hatred was so extreme that the phrase “Bush derangement syndrome” was coined to describe it. In the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney accurately discussed the failings of President Obama and Secretary Clinton in the Benghazi incident, and was roundly excoriated for his effort.  He was also lambasted and mocked for his equally correct description of the dangers posed by Russia. Ronald Reagan, in his first run as the GOP nominee, was wildly portrayed as a fanatic in domestic affairs, and a man who was eager start World War 3. Barry Goldwater, a conservative who ran in 1964, was subjected to openly slanderous charges of being eager to initiate the use of nuclear weapons.

This year, the inaccurate diatribes against the Republican candidate have been exceptionally effective due to the aquiesence by some old-guard Republicans, who are concerned that Trump, a political outsider, will upset their leadership structure.  Rather than rise to the defense of their own party’s nominee, they have joined the biased media’s chorus. Their concern is, for their self-interest, well-founded. The GOP rank and file has been furious at the somnolent reaction by those kahunas to President Obama’s roughshod treatment of the Constitution and U.S. national security.  The overthrow of House Speaker John Boehner was a precursor to the Trump primary victory.

In their eagerness to assist in the election of their preferred candidate, open, clear violations of intrinsic Constitutional rights and basic laws concerning free and fair elections have been given short-shrift. The media has barely mentioned the extraordinary use of committed and threatened violence by some well-funded groups in blocking access to Trump events. Little critical analysis has been aired about the outrageous opposition by the Democrat National Committee to attempts to prevent fraudulent voting. Supporters of Bernie Sanders provided one bit of fair play, however, although not to the degree it deserved. Clearly, the Democrat primary process was rigged to insure Clinton’s success, from underhanded vote counting to the abuse of Democrat National Committee resources for Clinton’s benefit. The media outcry when the DNC chair was forced to resign for her unethical action—and was immediately given a position on the Clinton campaign—barely reached ho-hum levels.

The biased media has barely mentioned Clinton’s stunning failure to provide a full-fledged press conference in a vast period of time.

All of the above pales in comparison to the most significant omissions on the part of the left-wing press.  The sheer scale of Ms. Clinton’s abuse of her position, her overtly pay for play manipulation of the U.S. State Department, and her stunning personal profiteering from the sale of the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons to Moscow should be non-stop headline news. Almost all of the traditional media have failed to dwell on these outrageous, in some cases Benedict-Arnold style acts, and, indeed, those who mention them are accused of partisanship. The meeting of Bill Clinton with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, followed by a statement that the Clinton camp was considering retaining her if they win, all of which led up the bizarre refusal to prosecute the Democrat candidate for extraordinary negligence in her handling of state secrets (an act which has consistently led to punishment for others) should have been the most explosive news story in decades.  It has hardly factored in the news, other than those few outlets which already were critical of her.

An important postscript: one of the few realms in which an open and vigorous exchange of viewpoints in the 2016 campaign occurs, the internet, is scheduled to be transferred from American control, which always insured free speech, to the control of an international body highly influenced by nations advocating censorship before the November election.