The mainstream media breaks its arms patting themselves on the back for their supposed even-handed treatment of all who run for President of the United States. To hear them tell it, matters not if you are a Republican or a Democrat. Of course, this is nothing more than pure nonsense. A simple look at a handful of recent events ought to convince even the staunchest defenders of the Fourth Estate.
In this space, I have made it as clear as possible that my opinion is that Donald Trump not only is unfit to be the Republican nominee but is also causing tremendous damage to the Republican brand among all manner of key constituencies starting with suburban women and Hispanics. That does not require me to overreact to each and every statement that I find ridiculous, much less invent or twist his words to “confirm the narrative.” On that score, my view is he is doing quite enough all on his own.
At the same time, it offends me to see a bunch of liberal Democrats who would never vote for any Republican under any circumstance wring their hands and feign concern over the fate of the GOP when Mr. Trump, Ben Carson, or any of our other candidates for President stumbles or blurts out something less than brilliant in content. Whether it is Eugene Robinson or E.J. Dionne, Harold Meyerson, or any of a goodly number of columnists pretending they care one iota about the Republican Party, all of it is merely a cover to whack all things Republican and conservative.
What makes this more aggravating is the ability of these same liberals in the mainstream media to fail to remotely use the same sort of standards to think about things liberal and Democrat.
Examples? How about Hillary Clinton’s recent observations about how women accusing men of sexual misconduct ought to be treated and viewed. “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.” This comes from a speech in September. Then, on November 23, Mrs. Clinton tweeted: “every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” Do you recall CBS News being aghast at the irony of the wife of a serial sexual abuser making such statements? Do you recall her being hounded at campaign stop after campaign stop or interview after interview with demands she answer how could she possibly say such things after the lengths the Clinton machine went after those accusing Bill Clinton of such deeds? Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick. Each and every one of these women were demonized by the Clinton machine. In one case (Willey), a federal court ruled in 2000 that Bill Clinton committed a criminal violation of the Privacy Act by releasing letters intended to undermine her credibility. Does this sound to you as though Hillary Clinton can be believed on this matter? Are you at all shocked the mainstream media has given her a free pass on the topic?
Using logic similar to that which argues we can believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, the Clintons demand we agree that accepting literally millions and millions of dollars from donors who not only have business before Hillary Clinton’s State Department but who also can be shown to have received much attention and favorable treatment on a myriad of issues had all of these good things happen with no connection between this treatment and donations to the Foundation. Has this been reported? Yes, to some degree it surely has. However, do you recall this being an important topic for Mrs. Clinton at the debate? Do you remember her being hounded on the campaign trail with demands to account for all of this? Add to this, the Clintons were required to make massive corrections to their tax returns in an attempt to remotely approximate the benefits they enjoyed from the Foundation. Still, is this a front page scandal, day after day? Not hardly.
Let a Republican propose something new and making sure every voter is aware of any potential shortcoming is a must. Fully understanding how the proposal will be paid for, who will lose anything on account of it, etc., that is the definition of mainstream media review. Yet, this week we learn that the cost of Mrs. Clinton’s proposals on the campaign trail has reached one trillion dollars. Funny, I cannot recall the New York Times doing any sort of exposé on this. I have no memory of her being required by the media to tell us how this will be funded, whose taxes will be increased. Of course, one trillion dollars is pocket change compared to what Bernie Sanders wants to spend.
Speaking of Bernie Sanders, why is it such a huge problem for Republicans to have Donald Trump receive something along the lines of 30 percent of the vote in polls, but not a problem for Democrats for Sanders to do pretty much the same thing? Bernie Sanders probably is nicer guy than Donald Trump, but he is every bit as much on the outside of allowing facts or sanity interfere with delusions as to what is real or ought to be done. Why is Bernie Sanders not treated as a nut case? Because the mainstream media likes to see the Democrats pushed even further to the left. The mainstream media does not find it ridiculous to propose that student loans be forgiven or that college itself should be free. They have full sympathy for what it is that Bernie Sanders wants to do.
The MSM fixates on how Americans ought not to believe Donald Trump but refuse to do the same when it is Hillary Clinton. Remember when she proclaimed that none of the emails on her private server included classified material? Now, the number is 999 and counting. And, who is it that can even attempt to keep a straight face when Mrs. Clinton tells us that she tried to join the Marines? The same woman involved in anti-war protests and any liberal cause of the moment? Give us a break.
Do you think Americans might view Hillary Clinton in an even harsher light if the mainstream media decided the “larger narrative” was that she was incapable of telling the truth, said some of the most ridiculous things ever, and put forward public policies that clearly indicated she had trouble counting? Is it outrageous to insist the media ought to do a better job at covering the facts and truth about Mrs. Clinton? Given the coverage, apparently it is.
Nobody expects the mainstream media to stop their double standard hypocrisy anytime soon. What would be nice is if they could simply cease in their insistence of being so fair and reasonable. As the saying goes, anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows the truth.
