Is the Media Dishonest?


Is the media dishonest?

Okay. You know the answer already. Can’t say much new. Or can we? In our hope for a better world, or to think more highly of people and their organizations, we want to take them at their word. When their word proves false, it continues to astound us.

Examine how CNN headlined their article about who won the vice-presidential debate. “Pence Edges Kaine in VP Debate Instant Poll”. What was the score? Those polled thought Pence defeated Kaine by 48% to 42%. Other metrics described in the article showed even stronger gains and favorability for Pence, usually in the double digits. And a tweet covered in an article on Breitbart (granted, not exactly an unbiased source) pointed out that CNN has a greater number of Democrat viewers than it does Republican (caveat: though that sounds true, I don’t know that it is).

Yet CNN reports that Pence only “edges” Kaine! Wouldn’t a one percentage point win, maybe a two percentage point win, be an “edging”. How does six percentage points constitute an edging?

When CNN and other media report that Hillary leads Donald in the polls by 48 to 42 percent, or something similar, do they say “edges”? Or do they say Hillary leads Trump decisively in the polls? Or Hillary’s lead over Trump is outside the margin of error? Or do they say Hillary is almost at 50% and Trump can’t get beyond 42%; unless he gets beyond 42%, he’s screwed? Or do they say Hillary’s at 270 electoral votes even though she is NOT because not a single vote has been cast?

Just amazing. And just one of the reasons CNN is known as the Clinton News Network. She doesn’t stumble because she’s infirm; Hillary loses her balance because a current of air slams into her head, catching her by surprise! I’m just mocking. They didn’t actually report that. At least, I don’t think they did.

I read up recently on some of the history of Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be Cherokee and Delaware Indian. The falsehoods reported by lying news writers astounded me. Even The New York Times stated Warren was 1/32 Cherokee and thus met the requirements to be part of that tribe. False! The Boston Globe and other outlets defended her claim by citing bogus evidence that supposedly grounded her claim in genetic investigation. False! The Globe had to print a correction. Ha! Harvard University itself accepted her claim without vetting and touted her unproven Native Americanness.

You can’t prove a negative, so no proof exists that Warren isn’t Cherokee. As genetic testing increases its accuracy, perhaps one day it will prove or at least lend support for her claim of Native American ancestry.

The point isn’t a judgment on Warren, though maybe she should have prosecuted family stories about ancestry less vigorously in public. The point is the media lies. No longer are they a barometer for fact. It’s a free for all now, with every man for himself discovering the ingredients of truth.

It’s wearisome, but we the citizens have to keep peeling away the layers of bullshit the establishment elites and their media lackeys fling at us. Keep on your surgical masks and your gloves!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s