The 2016 United States presidential election has probably been the most interesting election cycle since the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was making plenty of hilarious jokes. The 2016 presidential election is pitting one corrupt, lying, crony statist (Hillary Clinton) against a constant, hour-by-hour flip flopper (Donald Trump). You also have potentially a third-party candidate making the debate stage this month.
It has indeed been an interesting election year. But perhaps the most compelling part of the 2016 campaign are the mainstream and alternative media outlets. The paucity of consistency, the blatant hypocrisy and obvious partisanship are taking over the campaign trails. Ostensibly, television networks and journalists favor Clinton, while the mainstream media admonish Trump because of supposed racism and bigotry rather than his inane policies.
The media’s lack of objectivity has never been so prevalent than this year.
This tweet shows just exactly how much media are in love with Clinton:
Find a love that looks at you the way the press looks at Hillary. pic.twitter.com/KxPXNpWl5n
— Razor (@hale_razor) September 6, 2016
The image is rather disgusting.
It’s sickening to see how far U.S. journalism, which was supposed to be the fourth branch of government to keep politicians in check, has fallen from the days of Edward R. Morrow and Walter Cronkite. What’s happened? There are so many opinions ranging from liberal college campuses to reporters morphing into social justice warriors.
Indeed, as the 1970s motion picture “Network” depicted, it’s been like this for a long time. It didn’t happen overnight.
As the legendary comedian George Carlin quipped, you should always think, never trust what the government says and never believe what the media tell you on television or in newspapers (today it’s blogs).
Justin Raimondo published a brilliant op-ed in the Los Angeles Times this summer. Here is a brief excerpt of what he wrote in his op-ed entitled “To fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectivity“:
“Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.
“Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire. Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration.”
One has to look to no further than the coverage of Clinton’s deteriorating health. Despite coughing for about five consecutive minutes during a campaign rally, several respectable doctors questioning her health and even the fact that Clinton was treated for a blood clot in the brain, the media will condemn you for even being concerned about her health.
(What makes this even more interesting is that Clinton used her own health as an excuse for not remembering her classified material during her interviews with the FBI.)
It was only eight years ago that the media participated in this exact same game. Media outlets, journalists and pundits demanded that Arizona Senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain release his medical records because everyone was worried about the state of his health. Salon, the Washington Post and the New York Times were all complicit in these demands.
Fast forward eight years later, these same media outlets, journalists and pundits argue that it’s wrong to request the same thing from Hillary Clinton. The reasons are endless; her age, because she’s a woman and it’s an “apples to oranges comparison.”
Classic Salon. pic.twitter.com/Z6mDVe4Yh5
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) September 6, 2016
At least the Post‘s Chris Cillizza addressed his hypocrisy with a blog post entitled “Why I wrote about John McCain’s health in 2008 (and don’t think we should write about Hillary’s health now).” He provided a flimsy excuse, though, on Wednesday:
“Here’s the thing: We are talking about — and I am/was writing about — apples and oranges. Sure, it’s easy to ascribe the difference in coverage to personal bias. Easy — and wrong.
“Rewind back to the 2008 presidential campaign. And remember that McCain, if elected, would have been 72 years old — the oldest person ever to be elected president. Had he served two terms, McCain would have left office at 80.
“That fact alone made his health a major issue in the context of the campaign. And McCain regularly acknowledged his age on the campaign trail — trying to use humor to deflect any doubts voters might have about him. “I’m as old as dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein,” McCain was fond of saying.”
Uh, Clinton is 68, while McCain was 72. That’s a four-year age difference. Also, the longtime GOP senator wasn’t coughing up a lung during each press conference.
Whatever the case, the media are on Clinton like glaze on doughnuts. Despite the numerous lies, inconsistencies, scandals and corruption allegations, the media adore the former Secretary of State.
Of course, some of the alternative media outlets supporting Trump aren’t any better. Alex Jones’s InfoWars, which had lambasted the government’s use of torture, spying and war in the past, are backing Trump, who supports all of the aforementioned, through thick and thin. InfoWars has done a great job over the years attacking the government and politicians, including in 2016, but its ardent support of Trump is highly questionable (SEE: Libertarians for Donald Trump? 5 reasons libertarians can’t support Trump).
Let’s face it: objectivity in the media is no longer expected. Newspaper articles are thinly veiled opinion pieces, news segments on CNN or MSNBC are commentary pieces and press conferences with Clinton are nothing more than fanboys and fangirls showing their affection for her.
Just take a look at the clip below. That isn’t exactly a hard-hitting question at all. And it’s precisely what’s wrong with the odious media today.
–AM
Leave a Comment