It is difficult to write about issues of campaign fairness in the media without being questioned about siding with one candidate or the other. But a failure to comment on the extraordinary partisanship of the media in the past two presidential elections would in and of itself be an abrogation of an analyst’s responsibility to objectively report on journalistic integrity.
The press has taken such a firm stance in favor of one candidate in the 2016 presidential race that it raises questions whether their actions should listed as contributions in kind under federal elections rules.
Hillary Clinton has gone through periods of over two hundred days without a press conference, her aides are busy taking the 5th, she is under investigation for endangering national security, she profited through her foundation for selling the raw material for nuclear weapons to the Russians, it is clear she lied about the cause of an attack that killed a us ambassador, her foundation has profited by donations from foreign nations with questionable records on human rights, her record of ethical violations is extraordinary, but the press rarely mentions any of the above while it parses in legalistic exactitude every utterance of her opponent.
Ms. Clinton has explicitly cast herself in the role as the inheritor of the Obama policy mantle. As that incumbents’ term draws to a close, the U.S. is enduring an unprecedented drop in comparative influence and power throughout the planet. America’s economy is floundering, not from the recession of 2007 but from policy decisions made by an administration that has emphasized government regulation over free enterprise. The military is in disarray. Racial relations are experiencing a low not seen since the end of the 1960s. A deadly brand of terror has reached America’s shores. The national debt has nearly doubled, with little to show for all that spending.
There is little doubt that Donald Trump is not an ideal candidate. He speaks in terms more commonly found in living rooms than in the halls of power. There is uncertainty over his policy goals. He has no experience in elected office. His ideological leanings remain undefined. But the violent, extreme prose that the press has used to describe him has been ridiculous. The refusal to condemn the organized and violent attempts to prevent voters from attending his campaign events is inexcusable.
An experimental or creative person can easily find online dealers that are selling ginseng products at http://valsonindia.com/portfolio-items/cotton-yarn/?lang=it cialis prices the best competitive cost. The shock which this device generates had a levitra online you can look here negative affect when these men were performing sex and during this window, provided there is arousal, an erection can occur. Do not cialis free samples get lazy and even think of leading a sedentary lifestyle. A great number of people have begun to opt for distance education courses, mainly because of the kind of flexibility and convenience that they provide. canada cialis As an example, On June 22, the Associated Press ran an article dissecting a Trump commentary virtually line by line. On that date, no mention was made of Clinton’s refusal to have a press conference in nearly 200 days, or that the security features on her home internet server, which illegally handled classified data, were disabled. A similar reaction took place in reviewing his accaptance speech at the GOP convention.
There is clear precedent. In the 2012 campaign, a debate moderator, Candy Crowley, openly sided with President Obama over challenger Mitt Romney. Romney’s comments throughout the campaign concerning Russia and Benghazi were consistently derided; they have subsequently been proven accurate, but no apology has since been given by the badly mistaken, and biased pundits.
The dire economic, national security, and societal challenges facing the nation require a thorough airing by the candidates, with objective, fair and non-partial coverage by the media. The extraordinary partisanship by the media is preventing that from happening.
Writing in the Washington Post Ed Rogers reports: “In ways both large and small, the pro-Hillary Clinton bias in the media is beginning to emerge as the push to get her elected as president in November gets underway. Some of the early steps are unsteady and a bit clumsy, but you can count on the media to find their stride and become more effective as the general election progresses. None of Clinton’s flaws and no part of her unflattering past or present will go un-rewritten or be left unpolished. At the very least, everything she has ever done will be given a new coat of varnish.”
The biased effort on Clinton’s behalf extends to the internet. The Daily Caller quotes Julian Assange’s (founder of WikiLeaks) statement that “Google is directly engaged with Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” The article reports that Gmail users are finding that Google is filtering Donald Trump’s campaign emails directly into spam.