The tilt is in.
The media ridicules assertions that it is biased, then provides its own proof that it is in the way it reports the news.
Once again, I’ll draw an example from MSNBC and its Morning Joe program.
The show has spotlighted a few of Donald Trumps statements or actions, usually the more sensational ones. It continues to talk about his comments on the Access Hollywood video, either live or on the scrolls and banners at the bottom of the screen. And it continues to comment on Trump’s assertion the election is rigged. Those topics give them criticism they can stream continually without saying anything new.
Yet the Wikileaks revelations detailed in the emails of Clinton or of her campaign or other associates receive a cursory mention and dismissal. Morning Joe will scrutinize, for the purposes of derogation, Trump’s assertion the election is rigged. They will seek and bring on air someone from, say, the state of Indiana to tell us, “Naw, nothing going wrong in the Hoosier state!” But when they see in actual campaign emails or in undercover video footage Democrat or campaign operatives taking notes about how to register illegal aliens so they can vote, you hear not a peep, no indignation, no in-depth examination about the truth or falsity, no journalistic inquisitiveness.
The only news the networks and the major press outlets provide is negative news about Trump. It’s the only news acceptable to them. Does that not raise the alarum that democracy and objectivity are dead?
Then you hear political mercenaries like Elise Jordan blather about Trump’s diversionary tactics, and Mike Barnicle chiming in about Trump’s only campaign narrative of anger, with Jordan predicting a nasty post-election November.
“He seems to really be setting the stage for a nasty November, after his loss, and calling into question the veracity of the American political system; and he’s clearly not planning on being a gracious loser, which I hope that he would come around and understand how important it is to the democratic process, this idea that when you lose you concede with grace.”
Jordan worked for Rand Paul, who lost big and early in the Republican primary. My question to her in regard to losing with grace is: Do you mean losing graciously like the Bushes? Like Mitt Romney (who wasn’t running but acted as if he might)? Like Ted Cruz? Like Marco Rubio? Like John Kasich? Like Rand Paul?
None of them lost graciously. All provided either half-hearted support, no support, or even supported the candidate of the other party instead of their own party’s candidate, who won fair and square!
The actions of the elite Republicans deliberately sabotaged the Republican candidate and aided and abetted the very candidate Republicans have demonized for decades. They have destroyed the Republican Party, or contributed to its destruction. Yet Jordan wants to wax pious and declare that Trump should honor the sabotaged process and, by implication, mend the country and the party, even though it clearly isn’t and doesn’t feel healed.
Had Rand Paul earned the Republican nomination, do you think Jordan would be hollering about Hillary’s and her party’s subversion of the election process?
Do you think she would be clamoring for an investigation of the Wikileaks revelations?
Do you think she might be calling the process rigged?
She would not have appeared on MSNBC, though, because they would not have given her time to explore the mystery of the lack of press coverage. Nope. That would be verboten! The media will not entertain any faithless questioning of its magisterium. Their inquisitors, like Barnicle, Mika Brzezinski, the social engineers at the Post and the Times, will place any dissent in their Iron Maidens and puncture it!
Democracy? Where? What the hell are you bastards talking about? Democracy means listening to the people, not you making the people listen and accept what you say, flooding them with an endless stream of your tunneling carnival sophistry.