Aiding and Abetting: How an Uncritical Media Helped Trump's Rise

INTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONAL

Aiding and Abetting: How an Uncritical Media Helped Trump's Rise

An Essay By Holger Stark

DPA

In his campaign, Donald Trump has successfully steered clear of the checks and balances presidential candidates are usually subjected to.

Donald Trump abuses members of the media and wants to limit American press freedoms, even as he exploits them to field his own message. But his rise can also be traced to the failures of journalists, who remained disturbingly uncritical for far too long.

Forbes writer Clare O'Connor? "Dummy." AP reporter Jill Colvin? "One of the truly bad reporters." CNN Journalist Sara Murray? "Absolutely terrible." Arianna Huffington? "Liberal clown." Fox moderator Megyn Kelly? "A bimbo" with "blood coming out of her wherever."

It would be hard to top the insults that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has unleashed on female journalists. Trump is a chauvinist who can't tolerate criticism from self-confident women. But these reporters are only his most prominent victims. Trump has demanded the removal of debate hosts, he has sued TV channels and during his appearances, journalists regularly become the target of verbal attacks. At almost every one of his rallies, there is a moment when he pauses, points to the journalists squeezed behind the press barriers, and says: "Those are miserable people!"

The longer this election continues, the more apparent it is becoming that this candidate is changing the fundamental relationship between the media and the American political world. The democratic public sphere, one of the pillars of every democracy, is facing two threats: Trump's brute attacks and the media's own failure. Many newsrooms didn't fulfill their democratic duty to monitor Trump, and to perform checks and balances, letting him get away with insults, lies and far-fetched promises. When it comes to Trump, the critical public sphere has shown itself to be dysfunctional far too often in the last few months.

Trump maintains a schizophrenic relationship with the media. On the one hand, he exploits it in order to spread his message and propaganda. On the other, though, he has nothing but contempt for journalists. He would even like to restrict press freedom, most recently through a proposal to strengthen libel laws by raising financial penalties so high they could put entire news organizations out of business. The proposed legislation could be described as a weapon directed at Trump's critics -- he's even explicitly named the New York Times and the Washington Post, two of the American newspapers who are going after him the most aggressively, as targets. The proposal offers a taste of what America would be like under a President Trump. These days, America feels a bit like Hungary.

The Twitter Election

Trump has also understood better than any other candidate how to harness social media in order to circumvent the critical public sphere. On Twitter he now has 6.7 million followers, and over 1 million on Instagram. The New York Times, in comparison, has a total circulation of about 2 million. Trump recently claimed that having his Twitter account was "like owning the New York Times without the losses." He has made it his policy to entertain his followers regularly, sometimes with over 20 tweets per day, allowing him to create his own stream of news.

The calculus behind this is simple: With Twitter and Facebook, the traditional media have partly lost their function as gatekeepers. Social networks allow direct communication between politicians and the people. Journalists no longer have a monopoly on information and communication. That isn't a bad development per se. The direct communication made possible by the Internet is, of course, technically democratic -- even egalitarian. But it can also result in the loss of the context, the discourse and the fact-checking normally associated with political debate. It also erodes the filtering function of the media. Barack Obama was the first politician to make use of this principle of direct communication during his 2008 campaign, and later during his time in the White House.

But Trump has expanded and perfected this method of circumventing journalists, and thus created his own parallel public sphere, with followers who are all too willing to believe him. And when he has no argument left with which to counter his critics, he can write a terse, mean Tweet arguing that he is merely being attacked by the liberal media establishment. No matter what the media say, if there is any doubt, it is a lie. It is the American version of "Lügenpresse," or "lying press," a slur that has become commonplace during the recent right-wing protests in Germany.

In his contempt for democratic discourse, Trump has some notable similarities to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who in a way serves as Trump's role model. The Russian once told a French journalist that, if he has so much pity for the victims of the war in Chechnya, he should circumcise himself. It was Trump-speak long before the real-estate tycoon even stepped onto the political stage.

It is no coincidence that Trump treats Russia with kid gloves. He says he has a good personal relationship with Putin, and that the Russian is a strong, impressive national leader. Putin and Trump are united in their loathing of the idea that a critical public sphere is part of a functioning democracy. They want to issue orders to people rather than explain things. This disdain makes them both fundamentally anti-democratic. So far, though, the outcry on the subject in the United States has been weak.

Failure to Counter Trump

Lots of American media outlets, especially large TV stations, have viewed Trump so far as entertainment. No word is too dirty to be put on the air somewhere, and Trump has a screen presence unlike any other candidate. Former Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich described the mechanics of this election to the hosts of "Fox & Friends," a show on the arch-conservative Fox News channel thusly: "Donald Trump gets up in the morning, tweets to the entire planet at no cost, picks up the phone, calls you, has a great conversation for about eight minutes, which would have cost him a ton in commercial money, and meanwhile his opponents are all out there trying to raise the money to run an ad." Of the show, which long offered Trump a regular platform, Gingrich said: "You could say that Trump is the candidate 'Fox & Friends' invented."

A power dynamic of superiority and subordination has emerged with Trump and some journalists that should not exist in a democracy.

Investigative reporting is one of the fundamental elements of democracy. It exists to bring to light the kind of information the powerful would often prefer to hide. In no other country is this tradition as strong as it is in the US, the home of the Watergate investigation. But when it comes to Trump, investigative journalism has failed. In contrast to, for example, Hillary Clinton in this election, there have been no big, 

groundbreaking pieces of reporting dealing with his past, his serious financial mistakes and bankruptcies that cost the state and society dearly. About the brutality he displays when people get in his way. About the rumors about his alleged ties to the New York mafia. About his tax returns which, unlike all the other candidates, he has not yet released.

His campaign thrives on his appearance as an all-powerful figure and infallible businessman. One suspects that there is another Trump who operates at the boundaries of that which is allowed, and often beyond it. But the only image of Trump that exists is a distorted one that he created and largely shapes himself. The media hasn't managed to correct that image.

Why? One leading Washington journalist argues that it's because it was not only the journalists, but also the other candidates' election strategists who underestimated Trump. Normally, the managers of each campaign tend to gather as much dirt as they possibly can about their opponents which, when the time is right, they spread. This didn't happen to Trump, he argues, because, like most journalists, the other candidates believed Trump would flame out. He argues that many news organizations only recently truly woke up. Perhaps too late.

Unlikely News Hero

Shamefully, it is Fox News, of all places, that has demonstrated that there is a different way of dealing with Trump. The candidate had threatened to boycott a TV debate against his Republican rivals that Fox was going to air shortly before the first caucuses in Iowa. The debate was to be moderated by Megyn Kelly, who had dared to ask Trump critical questions during an earlier debate.

Prior to the debate, the TV channel released a statement lambasting Trump. Trump demanded an apology. If it did not come, he said, he wouldn't take to the stage. Roger Ailes, the powerful head of Fox News, spoke with Trump several times on the phone but didn't apologize, and did not remove his host. Kelly moderated the evening's debate, and Trump stayed away. Four days later, he lost Iowa.

Trump has since figured out the connection between his absence from TV and his result in the caucus. He took part in the next debate organized by Fox in early March. Megyn Kelly didn't hold back, confronting him with quotes from his earlier speeches that contradicted his current positions, and forced him to admit in public that he was politically "flexible." It hurt him.

There is no guarantee that an aggressive confrontation with Donald Trump would lead fewer people to vote for him, or more to recognize his deeply authoritarian style of politics. Fox has nevertheless shown Trump how it could happen. One would hope that the next time Trump agitates against minorities or threatens members of the media, that assembled journalists would turn off their cameras and all leave the premises.

If Trump actually becomes his party's candidate or, even worse, becomes the next president of the United States of America, the damage to democracy would be significant not only because it would turn America into an autocratic nation, but because it would mean that, in this election, the principle of public scrutiny and thus democracy would have failed.

Bernie Bias: The Mainstream Media Undermines Sanders at Every Turn Thru Super Tuesday and Beyond

ELECTION 2016

Bernie Bias: The Mainstream Media Undermines Sanders at Every Turn

The pattern is to ignore, downplay and mischaracterize Sanders' positions.

By Rima Regas / AlterNet

September 2, 201

2

Photo Credit: via Sanders campaign

Who knew, when Bernie Sanders announced a run in the Democratic primary, that not only would he meet with hostility from his main opponent's chief surrogates, but that the media would acquiesce and even collude to such a great degree?

When analyzing the quantity and content of the vast majority of what is said and written about Sanders, his campaign platform, and appearances, one finds a running theme across the so-called liberal media. The New York Times has been called out by more than one analyst, myself included, for its complete lack of serious coverage of Bernie Sanders.

Since joining the staff at the New York Times, Maggie Haberman has written about Sanders on fewer than a handful of occasions, while she has written about the other candidates in the race more often. While it is understandable that Hillary Clinton would be the subject of more numerous articles, it makes no sense for Martin O'Malley to have more articles written about him than Sanders, given the pecking order that emerged right from the start, yet that is what has transpired so far.

In articles that address various aspects of the Democratic side of the primary, Senator Sanders' ability to succeed is always described in doubtful terms, even as Hillary Clinton's troubles in the polls are being described. The New York Times has published fewer than a dozen pieces that are Sanders campaign-specific and each is problematic in the way he is portrayed. Most often, Sanders' age and hair are highlighted, and the incorrect moniker "socialist" is applied. (Socialist and Democratic socialist are not interchangeable terms.)

While the age of a candidate might matter to some when thinking about a candidate's experience or mental capacity, Bernie Sanders is 73, only six years older than Hillary Clinton. His mental capacity has never been a subject of contention. One can only conclude from the repetition of negative references, that writers are attempting to condition readers into thinking of Sanders as the "unkempt" elderly stereotype.

Most presidential candidates have been older than 60. Think of Ronald Reagan. The distance between 67 to 73, in human years, isn't that significant from either the experiential or health standpoints. If anything, Sanders' breakneck schedule, accounting for work in the Senate, crisscrossing the nation to hold rallies, and appearing on cable news shows demonstrates a high level of mental and physical energy.

The most harmful way anti-Sanders media bias has been manifested is by omission. In this respect, the New York Times is joined by the vast majority of the mainstream media in not typically reporting on Sanders, especially on policy. Overall there is  a version of a “wall of silence” built by the media when it comes to serious reporting and analysis of his policies; or when analyzing or reporting on the policies of his opponents, a failure to mention Sanders' in contrast, especially when his is the more progressive position. This behavior hasn't gone unnoticed by readers. You can see numerous complaints from readers about the Times organization's bias toward Sanders. You see it in the New York Times comments section, on the Facebook pages and comments sections of all the major publications, and just about everywhere else. Readers complain about the lack of substantive coverage as well as the bias in what little is published. The Times' Jason Horowitz' piece, "Bernie Sanders Draws Big Crowds to His 'Political Revolution" drew over 1600 comments, double what the most popular columns usually fetch, with most in protest over the obvious bias of the piece and the Times' egregious lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders news.

Bernie Sanders' campaign has centered around economic justice and his plans to reform banking, taxation, trade, stimulate the economy, promote manufacturing at home, and institute jobs programs. I've yet to see side-by side comparisons of the top two Democratic candidates' prescriptions for the US economy. Most economists and economic writers chose to publish pieces on the Clinton economic plan before she gave her speech. Few wrote about it after, and with reason: The speech didn't deliver much in the way of specifics, and was vague about policies that the voting public expects. Sanders' version of an economic plan has yet to garner serious analysis and discussion. Both Clinton and Sanders base their economic prescriptions on economist Joseph Stiglitz' most recent work, Rewrite The Rules. Paul Krugman has, on three occasions, talked up Hillary Clinton's economic platform, specifically on wages, without so much as mentioning Sanders. Clinton favors a minimum wage of $15 per hour in New York City, and $12 an hour nationally. Sanders has called for the minimum wage to be raised to $15 an hour for everyone. The Times had reported, in May, that Stiglitz' work would likely greatly influence Clinton's platform. If it has, one wouldn't know it, judging by subsequent writings.

Plan for Racial Justice

While news outlets were reporting on the disruptions of Sanders by the Black Lives Matter movement, few followed up on the story as Sanders began to respond positively. Sanders gave a major speech to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference on July 27. It received very little attention from the press. And within a week, Sanders delivered his answer to Black Lives Matter, by way of a plan. The New York Times has yet to make mention of Sanders' plan for racial justice, link to the senator's website, or publish it outright in an article. And the media has ignored the fact that the racial justice plan has received praise among a number of Black Lives Matter leaders, including activist Deray McKesson.

Clarence Page recently wrote about Sanders in an op-ed for the Chicago Tribune. He took a tack that many in the press now use: comparing and contrasting Sanders to Donald Trump. Given the kinds of controversy Trump has kicked up with his racial statements, and the treatment Sanders has received over his racial justice bona fides, it is no surprise that many of Sanders' supporters are angry. Page begins his op-ed with: "The farther the left and right wings in politics move toward extremes, an old saying goes, the more they resemble each other."

In any other context, that kind of contrast might have been fair, but not in a piece about Trump and Sanders. In his third paragraph, Page writes: "In recent days we have seen how both Trump, now a seasoned reality TV star, and Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, have faced sharp criticism within their separate political tribes for omitting or offending key constituencies."

While it is true enough that Trump has been making racially offensive statements about all constituencies that aren't key to his campaign, that same accusation does not apply to Bernie Sanders, who in stark contrast to his main opponent, has never, in 50 years of documented political activism and public office, uttered a racially offensive statement, or favored policies that are detrimental to minorities.

Page praises Sanders' plan for racial justice, without any discussion of its points and then goes on to characterize the diversity of Sanders' supporters: "But his impressively huge crowds have been even less diverse than his 95-percent-white home state of Vermont." There's not been a study or poll of the crowds at Sanders events. From what I could see of Sanders' Los Angeles and New Orleans rallies, the crowds seemed to match the diversity of the locale. Of note is the fact that there hasn't yet been a large-scale poll of the black community on its support of Sanders following the publication of his plan for racial justice.

Over a month after the publication of Sanders' plan for racial justice, the media continues to portray him as someone who is racially wounded, when to begin with, that "problem" came into existence the day of the Netroots Nation disruption under the guise of eliciting needed policy from all candidates, even those who are considered friends. As the top Democratic candidate continues to owe such "needed policy," Hillary Clinton continues to enjoy relative insulation from the perception of having any racial wounds, in spite of a record of promoting policies that have led to the very reasons for the birth of Black Lives Matter.

Over at Vox, coverage of Sanders by everyone but Ezra Klein has mostly been overtly negative. Dara Lind address a portion of the race issues in her interview of comedian Roderick Greer, who came up with the Twitter hashtag BernieSoBlack. But that piece contained much more than an explanation of some funny hashtag, and all of it was slanted in the direction of stripping Sanders of his civil rights achievements, even as the piece was titled to indicate Greer's frustration at Sanders' supporters. Attacking Sanders' supporters and portraying them as racist or borderline racist has been a running theme in the press. Since his record on civil rights cannot be impeached and he has never committed a racial faux-pas, the only way to attack him on race is through his supporters, and that is how in piece after piece, Sanders' record is being sullied.

The attacks on Sanders began with a curious refusal to give him any credit for taking part in the civil rights movement, and have been followed up by pieces designed to paint him as dispassionate about human rights and racial justice. Few are those who cite Sanders' longstanding near-perfect rating by the NAACP and ACLU, or mention those, like Senator Cory Booker, who have spoken up in defense of Sanders' lifelong record with the African-American community.

Since when don't records matter?

Up until Bernie Sanders, a politician's record has always been the measure by which evaluations are made. This is of particular import here because Sanders' main opponent, Hillary Clinton, also has a very long record and it isn't being scrutinized. When Clinton met with protesters in New Hampshire and she was confronted with policies of hers and Bill Clinton's that have harmed the black community, little was made of it in the press. All chatter about Clinton's behavior at that meeting has practically come to an end, and she has yet to publish her own policy proposals for racial justice.

Sanders has focused his tenure as a public official on economic justice. That doesn't mean he paid no attention to racial justice. His stump speeches, with few exceptions, make mention of the racial disparities in our society. One example that comes to mind is Sanders' appearance in front of the Council of La Raza, where he spent several minutes addressing racial disparities harming African Americans. 

The characterization that Sanders' position on solving the problems of racial injustice is through addressing economic inequality is patently false. Sanders has long been on record as saying that racial inequality is a separate problem that needs to be addressed in parallel. Almost to a voice, the U.S. mainstream press corps avoids any mention of that in order to cement the perception that Bernie Sanders isn't serious about redressing America's original sin.

At a time when economic and racial inequality are at their deepest, we are again at a similar moment in time as when the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was speaking out in favor of racial unity to fight poverty and inequality. In one of his last speeches, "The Three Evils of Society," King described the conditions we find ourselves in today. His prescription came in the form of his Poor People's Campaign, uniting the nation's whites and blacks to fight for economic justice. It is painful to hear and read those who are intimately familiar with King's speeches joining in the same behaviors as the rest of their colleagues in the media in praising Bernie Sanders and putting him down all at once, at times even using the very same Martin Luther King quotes included in Sanders' plan for racial justice.

To Martin Luther King Jr., racial, educational and economic justice were always inexorably tied. To James Baldwin, racial, educational and economic justice were indivisible from each other. It takes a rare cynic who is well versed in the writings of Baldwin and King to use them as bludgeons against Sanders, all the while withholding salient facts from the public, so it can do its job as described in Baldwin's The Fire Next Time:

“And here we are at the center of the arc, trapped in the gaudiest, most valuable, and most improbable water wheel the world has ever seen. Everything now, we must assume, is in our hands; we have no right to assume otherwise. If we—and now I mean the relatively conscious whites and the relatively conscious blacks, who must, like lovers, insist on or create, the consciousness of the others—do not falter in our duty now, we may be able, handful that we are, to end the racial nightmare, and achieve our country, and change the history of the world. If we do not now dare everything, the fulfillment of that prophecy, recreated from the Bible in song by a slave, is upon us: “God gave Noah the rainbow sign, No more water, the fire next time!”

In the absence of fair media coverage, how do we create the consciousness of the others? How do we achieve our country? How do we avoid repeating history?

Rima Regas is a Southern California-based writer and commentator with a passion for progressive politics, and social and economic justice. Her career has included stints as a congressional staffer, graphic designer, technical writer and editor. Follow her on Twitter @Rima_Regas and Blog#42 atwww.rimaregas.com

Media Bias Helps Promote Suffering / Suffering Promotes Profits and Seldom Solves or Resolves Social Problems

Media Bias Helps Promote Suffering

by James Hoover / January 27th, 2016

CBS’s 60 Minutes often provides important information about vulnerable and suffering Americans. Last Sunday, the program centered on billionaires sharing their wealth with the needy and forgotten people in some states deprived of health care, though the 60 Minutes segment doesn’t use the word deprived.

Where 60 Minutes fails in the health care segment involves not informing the audience about the real circumstances leading to the exclusion of health care services we all have a right to enjoy.

The 60 Minutes segment focuses on two registered nurses who drive the Health Wagon through six counties in the Appalachian area, providing free health care service to anyone in need. The Health Wagon’s clients are the sick and uninsured, people not able to afford health care, but still covered in 30 other states under Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

The episode doesn’t mention why the expansion is refused in the 20 states, including those in the Appalachian area, only that those states claim to fear the future cost. It is people who cannot afford to purchase Obamacare, even with a subsidy, who seek help. The Obamacare Medicaid expansion actually provides for these people in all states, and includes those who earn 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) or less, the FPL being $15,856 for individuals.

The 60 Minutes segment only categorized them as falling in the unintended gap of lost coverage, as though their exclusion is an unintentional accident wrought by 20 states fearful of the expense. In actuality, those 20 Republican-controlled states would save money by instituting Medicaid expansion coverage under Obamacare. With no apparent rationale for those states to refuse coverage, one could only conclude that rejection of the coverage is only political.

When Scott Pelley first aired this segment in April of 2014 there were 20 Republican states rejecting over 3 million people qualified for coverage. He only said that the federal government covered the expense for 3 years. Not mentioned was that Obamacare would cover 90% of the cost in all the years thereafter. Also a disingenuous exclusion was the fact that the Medicaid expansion coverage actually saved money when considering the cost of alternative expenses (without the coverage) for the uninsured sick, expenses like emergency room care.

Furthermore, since 2014, Indiana has opted into coverage while Alabama and South Dakota are considering it. A bitter fight between newly elected Democrat, Governor McAuliffe, who seeks to expand Medicaid, and the Republican legislature, which rejects expansion, is still expected to shut out entitled Virginia residents. Last Sunday’s 60 Minutes, which repeated this April, 2014, segment, did not mention these updates, including the GOP’s exclusion in most states they control.

The point can easily be made that mainstream media fails to cover the truth about important issues and how those issues affect us and our more vulnerable fellow citizens. Such issues must contribute to what and whom we vote for. Withholding these truths only helps to contribute to misinformed voting or to an inclination not to vote.

Even life or death situations like the poisoned water in Flint, Michigan did not warrant informative reporting until MSNBC exposed Republican governor Rick Snyder for his reckless disregard for life and health, approving a new corrosive water source to save money. His action or inaction had a direct connection to lead poisoning of children, even ignoring for several months unsafe lead counts in their bloodstreams.

Though skirting the blame, the 60 Minutes segment did show that policies have impacts on lives. For example, the one patient treated by the Health Wagon, featured and interviewed by Scott Pelley, died three months after the interview. It was pointed out that Linda Moore, the patient, would probably still be alive if she had had health coverage when Obamacare was implemented the first day of 2014. Pointed out too were the neglected health risks such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, including how accompanying pain and death could have and should have been avoided.

We could well ask how many more will die as a result of dangerous partisan games played by Republican-controlled states. There are still 17 Republican-controlled states that are responsible for this suffering, even death. Standing in marked contrast to such heartless treatment are the kind and dedicated people who assist these forgotten Americans.

Not speaking the truth about the political party that is to blame and — what we can only conclude — are petty, spiteful, and partisan reasons for not providing coverage to which Americans are entitled is wretched and irresponsible.

This doesn’t just apply to CBS, but to all mainstream media. One can expect bias and vitriol to emanate from Fox News and right-wing media, but the corporate media has diffused blame for GOP obstruction for too long over both parties.

Such treatment only encourages more of the same. For as Republicans see no price is paid for their government shutdowns, budget blackmail options, loan default threats, and crisis legislating, they are only encouraged to do more of the same.

Since President Obama took office in January of 2009, the Republican Party began its Machiavellian policies in earnest. Let me review just a few of the most flagrant actions and lies, many bordering on traitorous. Unbiased reporting would have rendered them ineffective:

• Before Obama’s first Inaugural Address in 2009, senior GOP members of Congress had already met with conservative movement leaders and Republican strategists and agreed to ignore the electoral mandate and commit the party to a course of absolute obstruction, including spending bills to dig us out of the recession.

• Mitch McConnell publically announced his number one priority to make Obama a one-term president on October 23, 2010.

• Lies perpetrated by Republicans, and these are just a few: Obama doubled the deficit; Man-made climate change is a hoax; Tax cuts stimulate the economy; Voter fraud is a serious issue; Obama not born in US; Obamacare has ‘death panels.’

• Speaker of the House John Boehner violated a 216 year-old federal law by “joining with the leader of a foreign nation, Benjamin Netanyahu, against his own president.” Forty-eight GOP Senators undermined Obama nuclear treaty with Iran.

• Republicans waste millions by voting to repeal Obamacare over 60 times since it was passed.

• List of things Republicans demanded under threat of a government shutdown or default: balanced budget amendment; approved Keystone XL; cut funding for Planned Parenthood; Medicare privatization; Paul Ryan tax reform; defunding Obamacare (shutdown15 days in October, 2013); Trillions in budget cuts (2012 near default and resulting credit downgrade); accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees.

Such policies and actions should have been reported honestly and without any bias. Right-wing media function as allies for the right-wing cause. Mainstream media’s bias is more corporate in the vein of profit, propriety or entertainment.

But the reasons are incidental. Right-wing and mainstream media in their own way do damage. Right wing sources just cement the polarization that conservatives must maintain to stay in power. Mainstream media is a second punch that helps to promote a self-indulgent culture that feeds on the material and philosophical goods of a crony capitalist system.

James Hoover is a recently retired systems engineer. He has advanced degrees in Economics and English. Prior to his aerospace career, he taught high school, and he has also taught college courses. He recently published a science fiction novel called Extraordinary Visitors and writes political columns on several websites. Read other articles by James.

This article was posted on Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 10:15am and is filed under Capitalism, Culture, Democrats, Health/Medical, Media, Obama, Right Wing Jerks.

Corporate Media Won’t Tell You Hillary Clinton is a Lying Fascist

Corporate Media Won’t Tell You Hillary Clinton is a Lying Fascist

by Jack Balkwill / October 22nd, 2015

She was practiced at the art of deception
I could tell by her blood-stained hands

— Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” from the Rolling Stones’ 1969 album Let it Bleed

Right now, you’re probably asking yourself, “What does Jack think of Hillary Clinton?”  Well, I’m glad you asked.

In fact, Madam Hillary, the leading candidate for CEO of the United States of Corporate Empire, is being buried in money by environmental polluters, defense cheats, banksters, and other oligarchs and plutocrats because she’s shown unwavering loyalty to these scum of the earth all her life.  Shall we go back to the beginning?

In one of her older, smoldering lies, Hillary claimed to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary, famous for climbing Mount Everest.  The problem with this is that Sir Edmund didn’t climb Mount Everest and become famous until six years after Hillary Rodham was born.

During the October 13th debate she began her comments with “I have been very consistent over my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles.”  She often fabricates that she has always been a progressive, but her “values and principles” are not progressive.

Even in her teens, when Hillary worked on the Nixon campaign, and later became a Goldwater Girl, in support of two of the most right wing Republican politicians in US history.  In college, she was president of Wellesley Republican Youth.  Does this sound like “always been progressive?”

When she became a Democrat she joined husband Bill in the leadership of the Democratic Leadership Council, a corporate-funded group whose goals were clearly to clone a second Republican Party of the Democrats, so that their brand of fascism would not be distinguishable from that of the former.

Bill and Hillary have always presented themselves as a team, and you won’t hear Hillary disagreeing with Bill’s free trade accomplishments, which destroyed millions of good factory jobs for America’s working class.  Or Bill’s deregulation of media, which allowed the giants to merge and extend corporate power by keeping the masses ignorant. Or deregulation of banking, eventually leading to the massive 2008 recession resulting in millions losing jobs and more millions losing homes, as bankers, no longer restricted, became reckless with the extended economy.

In her last run for the presidency, in 2008, none other than Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for Hillary.  Should one ask why the king of right wing media would support a “progressive” candidate?  Murdoch is not known for wasting money.  He knew she would represent his “values.”

Even the Clinton family friends appear to be Republican.  During the 2008 race, Bill Clinton remarked that he didn’t know how Hillary would be able to run against their friend John McCain.  It’s been reported that when Obama got the nomination, Bill Clinton advised John McCain during the 2008 campaign.

Former First Lady Barbara Bush praised family friend Bill Clinton “I think that he thinks of George a little bit like the father he didn’t have, and he’s very loving to him. And I really appreciate that.”  If the Clintons are progressive, why do they have right wing friends?

Even daughter Chelsea, who married a Wall Street banker, is a friend of Ivanka Trump, daughter of The Donald who leads Republican candidates at this time.  Bill and Hillary attended Trump’s last wedding.  One almost expects to hear the déjà vu of Bill whining that he doesn’t know how Hillary can run against her friend Trump.

In fact, in his current election campaign, Trump is running a video highlighting praisefrom Bill Clinton, ending with “Thank you Bill.”  The Trump campaign opens the video with a suggestive question: “An endorsement from Bill Clinton?”

When in the Senate, Hillary voted for the Bush agenda — the Patriot Act, Iraq War, the fascist line.  She co-sponsored a bill that would make it a crime to burn the American flag, long a favorite of Republicans, and she supports the death penalty, which is opposed by nearly all progressives.

After Hillary pushed for war with Libya and President Obama obliged by bombing that suffering nation (which has not recovered to a functioning government), she was delighted that President Gaddaffi was savagely tortured to death, after having been shot several times, remarking: “We came, we saw, he died,” followed by a maniacal laugh.

On the campaign trail, Hillary often cites her time on the board of the Children’s Defense Fund in an attempt to show that she is progressive, but she doesn’t talk about her husband’s “Welfare Reform,” which threw poor children into the streets (two-thirds of those on welfare were children).  The founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, Marion Wright Edelman, said of that move by Bill Clinton, “His signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.”  Edelman’s husband resigned from the Clinton Administration over Clinton’s cruelty toward these disadvantaged children.

Selling out the American people pays handsomely.  Bill Clinton left the White House falling into immense wealth, as his corporate friends paid him off for his service to them, with $200 thousand a night speeches.  It’s been reported that he’s made over $100 million from speeches alone since leaving the White House.  Simply putting the money into his bank account would have looked too much like the payoff of bribes.

Hillary brings in similar loot from speech fees, book deals and other sources, capitalizing on what she calls “public service,” as though she cared a wit about the public interest.  Hillary tells us, in another of her lies, that she and Bill left the White House “dead broke.” But we we find that “In 1999, they bought a five-bedroom home in Chappaqua, N.Y., for $1.7 million.  In December 2000, just as they were leaving the White House, they bought a seven-bedroom house near Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. The price was $2.85 million.”

Hillary Clinton is not a progressive, but the opposite, a classic fascist.  She is currently running her campaign on a platform of lies, and if she is elected president, will reverse her faux progressive positions on anything of importance and sell out the American people, together with the people of the planet, in order to please those whom she’s always served, the wealthy and their corporations, at any cost to the public interest.

The majority of voters who vote Democrat say they are voting “lesser evil,” and if they don’t, the evil Republicans will get in.  No Republican could have gotten away with what President Obama did, when George Bush was so despised by the public and Obama increased his hated agenda, starting his presidency by finishing the bailout of banksters and increasing troop strength in Afghanistan by 30,000.

No Republican could have gotten away with Bill Clinton’s “free trade” deals, “welfare reform,” deregulation of banking and media.  The system encourages people to vote for great evil.  There is nothing lesser about the evil of Democrats other than their rhetoric.

Jill Stein is running for president with no coverage by corporate media, because they fear her like none of the others.  She would actually represent the public interest and democracy, the two things the establishment fear more than anything.  They will cover anyone before Jill Stein, or anything she represents, which is all censored out of the mainstream press.

But the mainstream press have been pushing Hillary for years, long before she announced her decision to run for President.  Hillary represents the same thing as corporate media—rule by plutocratic oligarchy, so the disgusting corporate “journalists” are kneeling and kissing her butt to find favor with their establishment bosses.

Jack Balkwill is an activist in Virginia. He can be reached atlibertyuv@hotmail.com Read other articles by Jack.

This article was posted on Thursday, October 22nd, 2015 at 2:17am and is filed under Democrats, Elections, Fascism, Media, Right Wing Jerks.

Do Not Let The Establishment Divide Us – We Are All Americans

End Of The American Dream The American Dream Is Becoming A Nightmare And Life As We Know It Is About To Change

Do Not Let The Establishment Divide Us – We Are All Americans

 By Michael Snyder, on January 26th, 2011

Have you ever noticed how almost all the mainstream news stories carried on the major news networks are slanted in a way that is intended to divide Americans?  The truth is that the “establishment” is constantly trying to divide us and get us fighting with one another.  They pit the Republicans against the Democrats (even as though control both sides).  They pit one race against another.  They pit one gender against another.  We are told that the rich are against the poor, the north is against the south, urban is against rural and that there are even “generational battles” going on.  Frustration and hate are rapidly growing in the United States today, and a lot of that frustration and hate is unfortunately aimed at the targets that the mainstream media has programmed all of us to hate.  Meanwhile, those at the top of the pyramid who are controlling the whole game love it when we are divided because we can never become united and challenge their control.

But the truth is that we are all Americans.  If this country goes down, it is going to take all of us down with it.  A house that is divided can never stand.

Unfortunately, America is more divided today than ever.  Many Democrats have an absolutely explosive hatred for the Republican Party.  Many Republicans can’t stop thinking about how much they hate Barack Obama and the Democrats.  Meanwhile, those that control both parties at the highest levels are loving it.

Why do you think they call them “establishment Republicans” and “establishment Democrats”?  It is because the “establishment” controls them both.

So just who is the “establishment”?

Well, they are headed by the ultra-wealthy international banking elite.  They fund the campaigns of “establishment” candidates from both political parties.  The shadowy “think tank” organizations that they have founded have provided the vast majority of the personnel for all presidential administrations since World War 2.

If you don’t believe this, just check it out for yourself.  Do some research on past presidential administrations and take a look at just how many cabinet members belonged to organizations such as The Bilderberg Group, The Trilateral Commission and The Council on Foreign Relations.  You will be absolutely astounded.

You see, the truth is that the “Republican Party” and the “Democratic Party” are simply two franchises that are controlled by the exact same owners.

For much more on who “the establishment” is, the following are a few good points to start….

*Bilderberg Owned Publication The Economist: Yes, Powerful “Globocrat” Elites Are Running Things, It’s Not A Conspiracy

*The Rise of the New Global Elite

*Only 23 Percent Of Americans Believe That The Federal Government Has The Consent Of The Governed

But you never hear much about the “anti-Bilderberg” movement or the “anti-Federal Reserve” movement on the nightly news.

Instead, we are constantly being programmed that the real “fight” is the Republicans vs. the Democrats.

The vast majority of Americans are imprisoned within this artificial left/right paradigm and they can’t seem to break out of it.

But even when the establishment does not have us fighting about politics they are dividing us in other ways.

For example, it seems like almost every issue becomes about “race” these days.  The mainstream media loves to play up tensions between the races.

And so what are we seeing in America today?  Sadly, our country is becoming more divided among racial lines than ever before.

Take the issue of illegal immigration.  The media portrays those that are against illegal immigration as a bunch of “anti-Mexican” racists and those that are in favor of illegal immigration as “pro-Mexican” human rights activists.

But the truth is that many of those that are most against illegal immigration are Americans of Mexican descent that came to America legally and that have worked hard to build a great life in the United States.  They resent all of the cheaters that are just hopping over the border and taking advantage of the system.

The other day I wrote an article entitled “Is Illegal Immigration Destroying The Southwest United States? 19 Immigration Facts That Very Few People Are Talking About“, and I quickly received some comments claiming that I was a racist and that I was full of hate.

Well, nothing could be further from the truth.  I believe that all people are of equal value and deserve to be loved and respected.  People on one side of a border are not more “valuable” than people on the other side of a border.  I simply want everyone to come through the “front door” so that we can stop the endless parade of gang members and drug dealers that are constantly pouring into the United States unchecked.

So is wanting all immigrants to go through the same legal process an irrational demand?

Of course not.

But the establishment media wants to make every issue about hate and about division.

And if there are some voices that the establishment media does not control that makes them even more nervous.

Take the Tea Party movement for example.  Now there are a lot of things about the Tea Party movement that are far from perfect, but in that movement there is just a hint of independence from the establishment.

So how has the mainstream media reacted to the Tea Party movement?

Well, they mock and demonize those in the movement every time they can.

Tea Party activists are called “crazy”, “loco”, “insane”, “wacky”, “kooky” and “extremists”.  They are laughed at by network anchors while they are being interviewed.  There were even several very highly publicized law enforcement documents that circulated around the Internet last year that referred to Tea Party activists as potential terrorists.

So why are Tea Party activists vilified by the mainstream media so much?  Well, it is because that movement represents a sliver of a chance that the American people may take back control of the political process in this country.

The establishment cannot let that happen, because their whole system depends on control.

When this country was originally founded, we were not a divided nation.  It was the founding fathers vs. the monarchy and the financial establishment of England.  Our founders were mocked and ridiculed and very few people gave them any chance of succeeding.  Fortunately our founding fathers won and they were able to establish this great nation.

Well, once again today those fighting against the “financial establishment” are being mocked and ridiculed.  Politicians such as Ron Paul that point out that ultra-wealthy international bankers use the Federal Reserve to manipulate and control our financial system are marginalized by the mainstream media. But fortunately the American people are starting to wake up.

You just can’t keep truth down forever.  Eventually it will rise.  The following is a brief 5 minute speech by Ron Paul on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Let it be a reminder to all of us that we need to be united if we want to have any hope of turning America back around….

The lost meaning of ‘objectivity’

Insights, tools and research to advance journalism

The lost meaning of ‘objectivity’

One of the great confusions about journalism, write Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in The Elements of Journalism, is the concept of objectivity.

When the concept originally evolved, it was not meant to imply that journalists were free of bias. Quite the contrary.

The term began to appear as part of journalism after the turn of the 20th century, particularly in the 1920s, out of a growing recognition that journalists were full of bias, often unconsciously. Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information – a transparent approach to evidence – precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work.

In the latter part of the 19th century, journalists talked about something called “realism” rather than objectivity. This was the idea that if reporters simply dug out the facts and ordered them together, truth would reveal itself rather naturally.

“

Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information – a transparent approach to evidence

”

Realism emerged at a time when journalism was separating from political party affiliations and becoming more accurate. It coincided with the invention of what journalists call the inverted pyramid, in which a journalist lines the facts up from the most important to the least important, thinking it helps audiences understand things naturally.

At the beginning of the 20th century, however, some journalists began to worry about the naïveté of realism. In part, reporters and editors were becoming more aware of the rise of propaganda and the role of press agents.

At a time when Freud was developing his theories of the unconscious and painters like Picasso were experimenting with Cubism, journalists were also developing a greater recognition of human subjectivity.

“

The method is objective, not the journalist.

”

In 1919, Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz, an associate editor for the New York World, wrote an influential and scathing account of how cultural blinders had distorted the New York Times coverage of the Russian Revolution. “In the large, the news about Russia is a case of seeing not what was, but what men wished to see,” they wrote. Lippmann and others began to look for ways for the individual journalist “to remain clear and free of his irrational, his unexamined, his unacknowledged prejudgments in observing, understanding and presenting the news.”

Journalism, Lippmann declared, was being practiced by “untrained accidental witnesses.” Good intentions, or what some might call “honest efforts” by journalists, were not enough. Faith in the rugged individualism of the tough reporter, what Lippmann called the “cynicism of the trade,” was also not enough. Nor were some of the new innovations of the times, like bylines, or columnists.

The solution, Lippmann argued, was for journalists to acquire more of “the scientific spirit … There is but one kind of unity possible in a world as diverse as ours. It is unity of method, rather than aim; the unity of disciplined experiment.” Lippmann meant by this that journalism should aspire to “a common intellectual method and a common area of valid fact.”

To begin, Lippmann thought, the fledgling field of journalist education should be transformed from “trade schools designed to fit men for higher salaries in the existing structure.” Instead, the field should make its cornerstone the study of evidence and verification.

Although this was an era of faith in science, Lippmann had few illusions. “It does not matter that the news is not susceptible to mathematical statement. In fact, just because news is complex and slippery, good reporting requires the exercise of the highest scientific virtues.”

In the original concept, in other words, the method is objective, not the journalist. The key was in the discipline of the craft, not the aim.

This point has some important implications.

One is that the impartial voice employed by many news organizations – that familiar, supposedly neutral style of newswriting – is not a fundamental principle of journalism. Rather, it is an often helpful device news organizations use to highlight that they are trying to produce something obtained by objective methods.

The second implication is that this neutral voice, without a discipline of verification, creates a veneer covering something hollow. Journalists who select sources to express what is really their own point of view, and then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective, are engaged in a form of deception. This damages the credibility of the craft by making it seem unprincipled, dishonest, and biased.

The impartial voice employed by many news organizations – that familiar, supposedly neutral style of newswriting – is not a fundamental principle of journalism.

”

Reporters have gone on to refine the concept Lippmann had in mind, but usually only privately, and in the name of technique or reporting routines rather than journalism’s larger purpose. The notion of an objective method of reporting exists in pieces, handed down by word of mouth from reporter to reporter.

Developmental psychologist William Damon at Stanford, for instance, has identified various “strategies” journalists have developed to verify reporting. Damon asked his interviewees where they learned these concepts. Overwhelmingly the answer was: by trial and error and on my own or from a friend. Rarely did journalists report learning them in journalism school or from their editors.

Many useful books have been written. IRE (Investigative Reporters and Editors) for instance, has tried to develop a methodology for how to use public records, read documents, and produce Freedom of Information Act requests.

By and large, however, these informal strategies have not been pulled together into the widely understood discipline that Lippmann and others imagined. There is nothing approaching standard rules of evidence, as in the law, or an agreed-upon method of observation, as in the conduct of scientific experiments.

Nor have older conventions of verification been expanded to match the new forms of journalism. Although journalism may have developed various techniques and conventions for determining facts, it has done less to develop a system for testing the reliability of journalistic interpretation.

---

This guide, like many of the others in API’s Journalism Essentials section, is largely based on the research and teachings of the Committee of Concerned Journalists — a consortium of reporters, editors, producers, publishers, owners and academics that for 10 years facilitated a discussion among thousands of journalists about what they did, how they did it, and why it was important. The author, Walter Dean, was CCJ training director and API Executive Director Tom Rosenstiel formerly co-chaired the committee.

How “Neutral” Reporting is Biased

THE PROGRESSIVE CYNIC

MODERN AMERICAN POLITICS IS FILLED WITH PARTISANSHIP, LEGALIZED CORRUPTION AND EXTREMISM. ON THIS SITE YOU WILL FIND ARTICLES ON A VARIETY OF SUBJECTS AND POINTS OF VIEW THAT ARE NOT NORMALLY PORTRAYED IN THE CORPORATE MEDIA–DON’T EXPECT ANY SUGAR-COATING, PANDERING OR INTEREST MONEY PROPAGANDA HERE.

How “Neutral” Reporting is Biased

BY JSAGER99 OCTOBER 19, 2012 

2012 ELECTION CAMPAIGNS DEMOCRATS MEDIA MITT ROMNEY REPUBLICANS

(c) Josh Sager – August 2012

Many in the American mainstream media currently prize neutrality in their reporting over virtually all other values. The American media’s neutrality in reporting manifests as their giving equal credence, focus and criticism for all sides of an argument, without passing judgment as to the validity of the argument. While acting as the neutral reporter, the media simply reports what the different sides of a debate assert, and does not act as fact-checker; the neutral reporter trusts the different sides of an argument to present factual arguments and acts simply as a debate moderator (asking questions and ensuring that the answers are heard by the audience), rather than a journalist.

When talking about neutral reporting, it is very important to differentiate it from the idea of objective reporting. Unlike with neutral reporting, objective reporting comes from giving no side of an argument an advantage, yet holding all sides to the facts. Any misstatement of the facts or attempt to obfuscate the issues by any side of the argument is challenged by the objective reporter. The ideal media acts as objective reporters, not neutral reporters, and serve as the impartial referees which hold all politicians to the facts—ensuring that citizens are able to rationally determine accountability for their politicians.

While neutrality is sometimes a commendable and beneficial component of an unbiased media outlet, it can easily become a form of bias. In situations where an argument is between a rational individual and an irrational individual—rather than two rational actors—neutrality is heavily biased in favor of the irrational arguer. When the neutral media does not fact-check politicians who attempt to argue using nonsensical or nonfactual arguments, it allows politicians to promote arguments with no real basis in fact.

A non-factual argument, while incorrect, is often far easier to perpetuate than a rational argument; non-factual arguments are based upon fictions which are tailored to support the argument, and reject all opposing evidence. In the absence of fact-checkers, the fictional constructs of non-factual arguments can easily trick the uninformed into supporting policies which cannot work in real life, and have little basis in reality.

A neutral media, like the one in the United States, provides the perfect medium for the propagation of non-factual arguments. By endlessly repeating all sides of an argument, without checking to see if the arguments are based in reality, the neutral media gives credibility to nonsensical arguments. The neutral status of the media creates the public perception that the sides covered by the media are factual and rational. Unfortunately, the credibility given to nonsensical arguments when they are repeated by the mainstream media allows for non-fictional arguments to be mainstreamed in ways which would be impossible with an objective media.

Probably the greatest example of the distortive effect of neutrality can be found in the modern debates over tax cuts. Large segments of the Democratic Party and the entire Republican Party have argued that tax cuts are needed to bolster the failing economy and promote growth; this is a falsehood, and has been used to promote terrible economic policies. It is true that some tax cuts, in some situations, can spur economic growth, but this is not always the case. It is common knowledge among economists that tax cuts are not the economic panacea which they are portrayed as by politicians, but the media continues to perpetuate this falsehood simply because politicians claim it to be true.

Recent Examples of Situations Where Neutrality has become Biased:

• Claiming that Washington gridlock is bipartisan—While Washington is always engaged in argument, the modern Republican Party has acted to obstruct everything within their power; this obstruction is not bipartisan, and is not normal.
• Portraying Obama as a radical liberal—Regardless of what many claim, Obama is not a radical liberal. Obama is a center-right politician who holds many of the same views/supports the policies of the Republican Party of the late 20th century.
• Not debunking Republican “Job Bills”—The Republican Congress has passed numerous tax cuts which they have called jobs bills. Despite this label, studies of these bills have shown that they create no jobsand are “Jobs Bills” in name only.
• Not calling the US drone program extreme—Both parties support the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists, even if the suspects are Americans; this policy is extreme and an abrogation of contemporary due process, yet it is not questioned in the media. Just because both political sides consider targeted assassinations a non-issue, the media fails to point out just how objectively aberrant the policy is.
• Calling global warming controversial—When politicians assert that that global climate change is a controversial theory, the media has consistently refused to point out that global climate change isaccepted scientific fact. A vast majority of scientists (essentially all scientists not employed by extraction companies) agree that global climate change is real and man-made.

If Americans wish to have a functional government which passes fact-based policy, we must demand that our media not only refuse to take sides in their political reporting but also ensure that all politicians base their policies upon factual arguments. Unless our politicians are forced to live within the facts by the media, they will be able to convince the public to support irrational policies. The media is not only the neutral mouthpiece for politicians to sell their policies, but the institution from which accountability is created.

Neutrality between the liar and the truth teller is not actually neutral (not that the sides are usually this clear-cut), but rather a form of bias which threatens to allow the liar to portray their lies as truth. The media in the United States must recognize this crucial distinction and begin to return to its role as the objective referee. Unless the media begins this return to its roots, it will likely become little better than an organization of stenographers, who are merely used to spread non-factual political propaganda.