The media has been given a 1st Amendment-protected privilege they clearly abuse because it’s their job, among other things, to be THE watchdog of government; NOT a partisan fan of politicians or their ideology. They’ve also made themselves the sole entity in charge of vetting candidates for public office. They can make or break a campaign based on what they find and reveal or choose not to.
While they act all sanctimonious, who are they to dictate (based on their biased reporting) the winners of elections that determine how we’ll live our lives? As many are so overpaid, they are basically immune from the ramifications of their meddling, and here’s something to ponder….
Depending on the channel or news site you view, you can get various and differing reporting of the same story. Imagine how uniform the news on any particular story would be if all disseminating were all under oath thus under penalty of perjury. But given how the media operates currently, they are free to spin according to their personal and political biases and if necessary, lie with impunity.
Granted, the definition of perjury only covers judicial proceedings but one could also argue that deliberately, potentially misleading millions of people when you’ve been given a Constitutional duty to keep the public informed of the activities of the elected, the cloud of perjury is one that should always be looming over the heads of the media.
So while the media vets the candidates, we also know many in the reporter class are arrogant, elitist, morally-flawed, and are (in some cases) no one to be sanctimonious when it comes to judging anyone, let alone those who are competing for political offices.
We’ve had reporters who tried to base an election-eve hit job on a candidate with a “forged but accurate” document, created a whole new ethnicity to fit a preferred narrative (white Hispanic), committed bias-by-omission on an almost daily basis, and in this election cycle, the scheduling of debates during weekend time slots where the fewest amount of viewers could view an inferior (yet media preferred) candidate would be on display.
The media is blatantly dishonest, are well-paid to be so, and are no one to be passing judgment on others. Many have been involved in DUIs, domestic violence, non-payment of taxes, and other misdeeds that would doom most candidates, but it would invoke the utmost in shock and outrage if a candidate ever asked a media pundit to explain their plagiarisms or other transgressions. It would be taken as an outrage if a candidate questioned the bias of a reporter who may have a spouse that’s worked on campaigns or lobbies for an opposing party, no matter how justified the concerns may be.
ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos was Bill Clinton’s Communications Director and Senior Advisor for Policy and Strategy, but we’re all to believe he can be impartial simply because he says so. ABC’s Claire Shipman, senior national correspondent for “Good Morning America” is married to Jay Carney, Obama’s former White House press secretary, but we all know any implication of bias is totally unfounded and professionally insulting.
NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour is married to Jamie Rubin, former Clinton State Department spokesman. CNN’s Chris Cuomo is a member of the New York Cuomo political dynasty, and brother of current New York governor Andrew. NBC’s Chris Matthews’ wife (and former local news reporter) Kathleen ran for Congress in 2016 but her name had nothing to do with the enhanced coverage her race received. Ben Sherwood, who was the former President of ABC News, has a sister: Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, who is currently Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of Energy, but we all know that connection is purely coincidental and no reporting from ABC News was influenced in favor of “green energy”, right? ABC’s Barbara Walters bragged about an affair with married US Senator Edward Brooke (R-MA) in the 70’s, but her professional integrity must never be challenged.
Of all people, Al Sharpton actually got a cable news show! That should say it all, and in almost ALL cases, none of the political alliances via family ties are disclosed in any of the media personality’s station bios.
How many of us could make shit up about what we do on the job numerous times and once caught, be kept on by your employer? Well, if you’re a white member of the media, forgiveness is in abundance. If you’re black… ask New York Times’ Jayson Blair or Boston Globe’s Patricia Smith how many media jobs they’ve gotten since they were busted in comparison to the merciful second chance Boston Globe plagiarist Mike Barnacle or NBC News’ disgraced serial embellisher Brian Williams received. Fareed Zakaria was suspended by both CNN and Time for plagiarism and now call a candidate an expletive on-air but as he’s a public Muslim, he was forgiven and is still working. Former CNN anchor Rick Sanchez left the scene of an accident after drinking (which resulted in an eventual death), yet has been given a second chance at Fox Latino. PBS’ Judy Woodruff, formerly with CNN, is also a current member of the Council on Foreign Relations and married to liberal pundit Al Hunt.
Imagine the feeding frenzy a political pundit panel would have over any Republican politician who had done any of the above yet look at the numerous controversies they’ve chosen to overlook or minimize because the inconvenient subject was a Democrat.
These are the people who proudly put themselves in the position of vetting our political candidates and do so in a blatantly partisan manner while assuring us they are 100% professional and impartial. How dare YOU imply anything less!
Some media pundits privately align themselves with politically-correct, high-profile causes that may differ with the opinions of their viewers while giving off the illusion of not choosing sides. They obviously assume their viewers are just too close-minded and stupid to be given the courtesy of disclosure or an explanation.
Until the news media (NOT opinion pundits) takes their duties seriously and present the American people with truthful information, there is no obligation to believe anything we receive from them when simple searches online reveal pertinent items they’ve altered on a partisan slant or omitted altogether.
The professional news media royalty has been ripe with the narrative that Hillary Clinton would have won the presidential election had it not been for “Russian hacks” that shared #FakeNews about her on the Internet. Those stories are complete with quotes from this “anonymous” or that “official” source who didn’t wish to be identified.
In the days before journalism had to be relaxed to meet millennial standards, no reputable editor would allow a story to go out with unnamed sources for the obvious moral and legal reasons, and the result today is intentional or incompetent “journalism” being spread by the very people who are bitching about people believing fake news.
On this topic, former Speaker Newt Gingrich was pretty succinct….
If journalists knew they’d go to jail for knowingly (“anonymous” sources wouldn’t be touched) reporting falsehoods instead of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, one can only imagine what we’d be talking about today.