Was the 2016 election a popular revolt against what many perceive to be a biased media?
During the Obama Administration, there was a tacit collusion between the White House and its ideological allies in the press, who overlooked major presidential failures in national security, terrorism, economic recovery, race relations and other areas, and an intentional lack of adequate coverage of scandals highlighted by the misuse of federal agencies for partisan purposes, most notably including the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice.
In return for the biased media’s downplaying of policy failures, the White House attacked rivals of its sympathetic left-wing press friends with an unprecedented vigor.
Newsworthy events of extraordinary interest were heavily downplayed by the major media. Examples include:
Obama-friendly officials on the Federal Communications Commission, in what may have been one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, initiated an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving federal oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites, thereby hobbling opponents of the Administration.
Largely under-covered was the stunning legislation, previously reported in the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, proposed by two Obama allies in the Senate, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York). They proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee Schumer stated that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”
Businesses employ custom embroidered patches too, often as a means to identify order cialis from india employees. This herb heals viagra uk the herpes lesions and also accelerates the healing process of wounds in venereal diseases. cialis from canadian pharmacy Feel rejuvenated and revitalised in everyday activities with shilajit gold capsules that can bring about a tremendous change in your life. One can never deny the fact that our bodies start to deteriorate once we cialis 5mg tablets reach a certain age. The contemptuous attitude towards the First Amendment could be seen in comments, also downplayed by media sources friendly to the President, by Federal Elections Commissioner, Ann Ravel, first reported in a Washington Examiner article. Ravel stated that “Upholding constitutional principles is not an appropriate role for a member of the Federal Election Commission. As noted previously in the New York Analysis of Policy and Government, The Democrat members of the Federal Election Commission attempted to impose a penalty on one news station that has been uniformly critical of the Obama Administration, based on a complaint from an obscure candidate that he wasn’t invited to a televised debate. Of course, those same commissioners have never considered imposing similar sanctions against the Democrat National Committee, which has inappropriately tilted towards Hillary Clinton in her primary effort against Bernie Sanders. The attempt was blocked by Republican Commissioners.
The tacit understanding between the Oval Office and the progressive-oriented mainstream media constituted one of the most significant threats against the First Amendment in U.S. history. Attempts to suppress views contrary to the Obama Administration’s came from a number of sources.
Perhaps the most widely viewed and blatant example of media biased was seen in the 2012 presidential campaign. Candy Crowley, a reporter tasked with moderating a candidates debate between Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, abused her position and repeatedly attacked Romney.
The inappropriate bias over the past eight years was recently noted by Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes in a Hollywood Reporter article. “The threat to the First Amendment came from the Democratic side,’ Bewkes said during a conversation with Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget at a conference in New York in a session that was webcast… the Democratic party had a campaign plank to change the First Amendment, and they were doing it in the guise of campaign finance reform.’ The CEO, continuing his theme, even acknowledged that the news media does, indeed, lean left, as conservatives have long complained. ‘That was worrying me more, because the press tends to miss that because they tend to lean that way, and therefore they were supporting what they were viewing, I think overly charitably, as something in cleaning up money in politics when in fact what it would do is restrain multiple voices…So, I thought the threat to the First Amendment came from the Democratic side more. I think there won’t be a serious effort on the Republican side.” Bewkes comments came in response to angry statements from President-elect Trump about media bias.
During the recent election, author David Limbaugh, quoted in Stream noted: “I don’t know how reasonable people can fail to recognize the overt collusion of the Obama administration, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party and the liberal media to shield Hillary Clinton from accountability for her many misdeeds and abundant corruption.”
The Free Thought Project notes: “After only a cursory search using Wikileaks invaluable database, ‘The Podesta Emails’ reveal not only direct evidence of media coordination, but an attempt to alleviate the damage…”