Media's Bias And Bed Fellows

In line with this same comment, the news lead referring to the New York Times hit piece on Trump referred to Trump's war with the New York Times, the obvious inference being that he had decided to fight with the newspaper, rather than that he was defending himself over an unsubstantiated story published by the Times. No, the press wants us to believe that Trump is unstable and likely to go off on anyone at any time. According to the press, Hillary is never negative. When she attacks Trump, she is merely giving information apparently, but when Trump even defends himself, he is at war with someone, or on a tirade, or some other such nonsense.

By the way, we know from the emails that Hillary has referred to Muslims as "sand niggers" which seems to be a common phrase used by her staff and others in the DNC. She commented that Muslims, blacks and Romanies almost never succeed in life, regardless of the situation, and talked about how the Japanese, the Chinese, and others are able to adapt but that the blacks, Muslims and Romanies never succeed. What do you think the media would do if Trump had referred to Middle Easterners as "sand niggers" and said that they, along with the blacks and Romanies, are either lazy or stupid because they are never able to accomplish anything? Yet because it comes from Hillary, I haven't seen or heard one word from the mainstream press, including Fox.

 

It looks like the story about the woman who was groped by Donald Trump thirty years ago, that was published in the New York Times, is fake, even the words that were used to tell it are. I am going to say that this seems credible to me while the NYT story had bogus written all over it from the start. Not that we'll see a retraction, however, at least not before election day.

The Donald Trump story, as told by the NYT, is taken from a Velvet Underground song. This isn't a joke. That woman's story was taken from an old Velvet Underground song.

"I know what you mean. My God, he was like an
octopus. Hands all over the place.

 

The Wikileaks emails revealed that, for the March 13 town hall, CNN passed on at least one question to Hillary Clinton in advance. No doubt, she's getting most, if not all, of them in advance, but one is all we can know for sure at this point.

 

Wikileaks has exposed journalists in Hillary's camp.

 

The media has always been biased but this election period they have taken it to new levels. It is as if the only thing that matters to the media right now is to elect Hillary Clinton. They don't care if they have any credibility anymore; they'll worry about that after the election. If there are threats of legal action, that's okay, as they'll deal with that after the election too. Promoting Hillary seems to be the only goal they have right now, and to do that they will lie, they will manipulate photos and video, and they will hide information from the public.

CNN, reporting on Trump's call for both candidates to be drug tested before the next debate, referred to Trump's claims as "wild claims," and twice commented that he offered no proof for his allegations.

This was a news article, not a commentary. Every media outlet published, broadcast, and has been doing nothing but repeating claims that Trump has made sexual advances toward a string of women during his lifetime, and I have yet to read or hear a news report mention that these claims have been made without any proof or evidence. No, instead, they have steadfastly ignored evidence showing that these claims were false. Nor have they referred to any of these allegations as "wild claims," or questioned them in any way. Rather, the narrative that they would have the public believe is that the large number of these allegations is proof enough. I haven't even heard a media outlet question why these women are suddenly remembering these things thirty years later, and weeks before a national election, or why there were no police reports or witnesses.

Whenever Trump says anything negative about Hillary, it is described as an attack, a rant, a tweet storm, or some other such thing; yet when Hillary or her surrogates do the same, it is treated as news or as information. It is not questioned, nor are any judgements made about her attacks on Trump.

It is as if the media's only purpose right now is to elect Hillary in November. Everything else is on hold.

 

Anyone who runs against a Democrat in a presidential election is accused of being a racist, a sexist, or a rapist.

 

Here's a note that I published on Facebook on that subject: Is it News or is it a Conspiracy?

 

CNN wants you to believe that it is illegal for you to read Wikileaks.

 

Thanks, Frank.