The news that Donald Trump has revoked the Washington Post's press credentials to his campaign has predictably aroused howls of protest on the left (and from the Post itself, of course).
What I find curious is that, while the Post boasts it has 20 reporters assigned to investigate Trump and is planning to publish a book about him later this year, it has no comparable journalistic task force (or plans for a book) concerning his Democratic rival for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton.
WND asked the Washington Post: “Exactly how large is the team your paper has tasked with thoroughly investigating Hillary Clinton’s background and associations? Are there at least 20 people tasked specifically with digging through her past and finding details in ‘every phase’ of her life?”
Washington Post Vice President of Communications and Events Kristine Coratti told WND that Woodward was referring to a large team of two-dozen reporters and researchers working on “a special book project” examining Trump’s life.
Why a book on Trump and not Hillary and her 22 biggest scandals?
“[W]e have years and years of reporting on Hillary Clinton to draw from, including her last presidential campaign, her time as secretary of state, and her position as U.S. senator,” Coratti explained. “Because Trump’s involvement in political life is far more limited, the Post newsroom decided to embark on a book as a special project. In order to complete the book in a timely fashion, reporters from throughout the newsroom have been assigned to work for a brief period on particular aspects of his life and career.”
Coratti claims the Post has the “same number of people” on staff investigating Trump and Clinton for its news coverage. She said the Post is planning a series on “the life and career of Hillary Clinton,” which “launches in just a few weeks.” Coratti wouldn’t provide any further details about the upcoming series.
So WND asked if she could point to any investigative stories on Hillary’s past that the Post team has published in the last month.
That’s when Coratti stopped responding to WND’s requests for comment.
There's more at the link.
I'm not one of Mr. Trump's supporters, but the media bias concerning him is becoming so blatant that I can't believe most voters are blind to it. It's like a mass feeding frenzy, with journalists becoming more and more hysterical on the matter. Surely they can't expect us to miss it? And surely they can't expect us to notice how they're ignoring Hillary Clinton's background? As editorial cartoonist A. F. Branco sagely noted, 'The hills are alive with the sound of scandals'.
Media bias? What media bias?
Peter
6 comments:
Exactly comparable to a Saturday Night Live skit about the NY Times sending dozens of investigators to Alaska to dig up "news" about Sarah Palin. No Thai food, but sacrifices must be made for the people's good...
*chuckle* I'm with Lawdog on this one:
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2016/06/dear-trump-protestors.html
I'm no Trump supporter, and have no intention of being one. But it strikes me as odd that they *don't* see the effect their actions are having on the average guy and gal that tries to avoid politics like the Bubonic Plague.
Well, you can't always avoid it. And when stuff like this comes up, well, there's a good lot of folks around here that are getting wise to the media's blind spot where this election is.
I'm assuming all the folks that have been hyperventilating over the citizens united decision will be condemning the WP and refusing to purchase any more of their products on the grounds that corporations are not people and shouldn't be engaging in political speech right?
I think this is working about as well as the bias to "remain" in the Brexit campaign. I.e. not at all.
The bias from the statist (and generally lefty) press (and the BBC to a certain extent - though they've been far less blatant that I expected) has resulted in many jokes in the various newspapers that are on the Leave side as well as satire sites such as the Daily Mash (there's a beautiful one about how Brussel Sprouts will be required to be renamed London Sprouts).
The thing is the MSM could get away with painting Sarah Palin as a moron because no one had ever heard of her before McCain picked her as VP. They can't do that with Trump because everyone has already heard of him and hence people can easily judge what the MSM says compared to what they (think they) know from reality TV. And the reality TV impression is that he's a bastard so saying he's a meany really really doesn't work. We all knew that.
The left and the media, but I repeat myself, lie. It's what they do.
Their narrative reeks of failure so they must lie about it in order to convince the uninformed and uneducated to support them.
We have an abundance of examples.
Katie Couric's "documentary" Under The Gun, with edits to make the pro gun culture folks appear stupid, and now evidence that the producers directed one of their people to knowingly violate interstate regulations on the transfer of firearms, a felony.
Now our fearless leader spouts the same tired rhetoric about evil assault weapons while ignoring the declared intent of this and many other mass murderers. Done within hours of the shootings, dancing in the still wet blood of the innocent victims in order to take advantage of the tragedy to advance the liberal agenda.
Today I hear a West Virginia Senator, a democrat, is calling for us to abandon due process, punish people because they may be suspected of future terrorism. We did this once before with American citizens of Japanese ancestry, locking them up in camps in response to the attack at Pearl Harbor. Possibly one of the most heinous violations of constitutional rights since Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War.
Remember the two rules of newspapers:
1) Sell more newspapers.
2) If in doubt, see rule #1.
For whatever reason, Trump sells more newspapers.
Post a Comment