Wednesday, September 14, 2016

The Beltway Media not Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton's Main Opponent

Paul Krugman rightly notes that the Beltway media is now objectively pro Trump.

Agreed. Objectively they are. I don't think they are necessarily subjectively pro Trump. so much as subjectively anti Hillary.

Why they are has a lot to do with an unacknowledged sexism. A lot of the handwringing over transparency is really code for gender.

As John Stoehr correctly says, Trump is not Hillary's main opponent. Her opponent is the media's constant double standard-riven in sexism and anti Clinton bias-while grading Donald Trump on a very gentle curve.

By now, it’s clear Hillary Clinton’s main opponent is not the Republican Party’s nominee. It’s the press corps following her campaign.
Under normal circumstances, a presidential candidate diagnosed with pneumonia would be commended for honoring the roughly three thousand victims and heroes of Sept. 11. She’d be seen as tough and admirable, as would anyone who put aside their health to commemorate America’s fallen.
Instead of covering her very public near collapse on Sunday with respect — or mere impartiality — the press reported that her poor health played into a “narrative.”
Why is this happening?
Why are the press, people who should know better, effectively undermining 2016’s lone viable candidate, given that Donald Trump, as a former deputy director of the CIA has attested, cannot credibly serve as president; given he has plagiarized nearly every policy speech he has delivered since July; given he appears to have used other people’s money (charitable donations to the Trump Foundation) to fund a smear campaign against a New York Attorney General, who is spearheading a lawsuit against Trump University?
No one knows. Perhaps no one can know."
I think it's anti Clinton bias. I think there are so many in the Beltway that want to destroy her, have wanted with Ahablike obsession tried and failed to destroy her and her husband since the 90s that they lose all sight of the big picture that they are normalizing someone who is essentially the American Caesar. A racist, Putin like threat to the very Republic. 
As Stoehr asks, just how privileged do you have to be to be unconcerned with the specter of a Trump Presidency?
It is shameful to see the media in it's privilege lose sight of the stakes and cover this campaign in such a biased way. We have case after case of the double standard. 
1. The Clinton vs. Trump Foundations where the CF has got so much negative scrutiny though it was totally transparent and has been found to have done nothing wrong vs. the Trump Foundation which was a running scam and that paid a bribe to the Florida AG to shutdown the Trump U investigation in Florida. 
Thank God for Kurt Eichenwald
2. Transparency: she's accused of being an outlier in providing transparency despite releasing 30 years of tax returns and the same amount of medical information as Obama and Romney did. Trump has released nothing. 
He was supposed to have released something today on Dr. Oz-who's a medical fraudster in any case-and the reneged on this.
While CNN's Gloria Borger still sounds confident he will release something eevntually I have no idea why. What's worth less than 'The check is in the mail' from Donald Trump?
3. The deplorables. The media has decided that Hilary may never live down calling Donald Trump''s supporters racists. You see she unfairly dismisses large groups of people. 
Here is another truly deplorable piece from the NY Times that accuses Hillary of being the one who divides people.

It seems to be a quibble not worth comment that Trump has said Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, that all Muslims are guilty of being terrorists until proven otherwise and that black people all live in the ghetto, are dupes on the Democratic planation and should vote for Trump because 'What the hell do you have to lose.'

4. Style vs. Substance. Chuck Todd showed us the classic Beltway model in covering the POTUS election.

Both Hillary and Trump equally failed at the foreign policy forum. Trump had no policy substance: ie, he didn't know what he was talking about and said crazy things.

Hillary's style was bad in answering email questions for the 87,000 time.

As Krugman says, truth has a well known liberal bias. But the media scores substance much higher than facts.

As Josh Marshall points out, the media monopoly has changed the media from an arbiter of truth to an 'impartial' referee. To show you're impartial, easier to talk about style than substance.

It is honestly, disgusting how complacent and privileged the media feels itself to be that they honestly act as if this is just another election. They are shameful. But have they any shame?

Or are they just like Donald Trump?

No comments:

Post a Comment