http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/libertarians-may-have-a-chance-to-shine/
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Bruce! > > Wow, I am surprised that the LA Times printed this Op-Ed; but it's "Spot > On"; and I'm glad you shared it! (Thank you!) > > For those of you who didn't click on Bruce's link: > > Op-Ed To fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectivity > [image: Donald Trump] > Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump discusses U.S.-Russia > relations at a news conference in Doral, Fla. on July 27. (Evan Vucci / > Associated Press) > Justin Raimondo > > Why are the rules of journalism being rewritten this election year? > > My local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in the > tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning read. > Trump’s acceptance speech, for example, was covered on the front page with > two stories: on the left a straight, albeit somewhat judgmental, account of > the speech, and on the right a “fact check” that disputed every point made > by the GOP nominee. Clinton’s speech was covered with three front page > stories, with headlines describing her nomination as “historic,” > “inspiring” and “trailblazing.” A relatively mild fact-checking piece was > relegated to the back pages. > [image: Should we care about Hillary Clinton's 'historic' candidacy?] > <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-hillary-clinton-first-woman-20160802-snap-story.html> > Should we care about Hillary Clinton's 'historic' candidacy? > <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-hillary-clinton-first-woman-20160802-snap-story.html> > > This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and > television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to > separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The > media has long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle > journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic > against what they see as a major threat, and in playing this role they’ve > lost the ability to assess events rationally. > > To take a recent example: Trump said at a news conference that he hoped > the Russians — who are accused of hacking the Democratic National > Committee’s computers — would release the 30,000 emails previously erased > by Clinton’s staff. The DNC went ballistic, claiming that Trump had asked > the Russians to commit “espionage” against the United States. Aside from > the fact that Trump was obviously joking, Clinton claims those emails, > which were on her unauthorized server during her tenure as secretary of > State, were about her yoga lessons and personal notes to her husband — so > how would revealing them endanger “national security”? Yet the media > reported this accusation uncritically. A New York Times piece by Maggie > Haberman and Ashley Parker, ostensibly reporting Trump’s contention that he > spoke in jest, nonetheless averred that “the Republican nominee basically > urged Russia, an adversary, to conduct cyber-espionage against a former > secretary of state.” Would it be a stretch to conclude from this > description that the New York Times is a Trump adversary? > > The DNC emails, published by Wikileaks, reveal a stunning level of > collaboration between important media outlets and the Democrats. Former DNC > Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sought to silence NBC’s Mika > Brzezinski, who had found fault with the DNC’s role in the primaries. The > emails have headings like “This must stop.” Incredibly, NBC’s Chuck Todd > agreed to act as a go-between, even arranging a call between Wasserman > Schultz and Brzezinski. Which raises the question: Why was a major media > figure taking his marching orders from the Democratic party chair — and how > did this affect his network’s coverage of the Trump campaign? > [News coverage tying Trump to Russia] smacks of the sort of McCarthyism > that we haven’t seen in this country since the most frigid years of the > Cold War. > > The DNC emails also show that Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel sent his > copy for a story on Clinton’s fundraising operation to the DNC’s national > press secretary, Mark Paustenbach, prior to publication. Politico has since > apologized, but Vogel has his defenders. The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple > said Vogel’s “prepublication generosity” was meant to give “the people > you’re writing about … the opportunity to rebut all relevant claims in a > story.” One wonders if the Washington Post does this for the Trump > campaign. Somehow I doubt it. > > Since last summer*, *Politico has been vehemently anti-Trump, and it’s > only getting more extreme. It’s run several stories linking Trump to > Vladimir Putin: “Why Russia is Rejoicing Over Trump,” “GOP Gobsmacked by > Trump’s Warm Embrace of Putin,” “Donald Trump Heaps More Praise on Vladimir > Putin” — and dozens of similar articles. The gist of these pieces is that > Trump’s stated desire to “get along with Putin,” and his comments on the > costs imposed by our membership in NATO, mean that Trump is essentially an > agent of a foreign power. A recent article by Katie Glueck on Trump’s > hacking joke said that Trump “appeared to align himself with Russia over > his Democratic opponent” — as if he were a kind of Manchurian candidate. > > Of course, Politico is not alone in what was once called red-baiting. The > Atlantic > also weighed in with Jeffrey Goldberg’s “It’s Official: Hillary Clinton Is > Running Against Vladimir Putin,” and a Franklin Foer story in Slate > was headlined “The Real Winner of the RNC: Vladimir Putin.” This coverage > smacks of the sort of McCarthyism that we haven’t seen in this country > since the most frigid years of the Cold War. > > Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can > certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and > they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to > be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind > up having the exact opposite of its intended effect. > > Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in > the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, > widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to > backfire. Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political > class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may > soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration. > > *Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com and the author > of “Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative > Movement.”* > > *Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion > <https://twitter.com/latimesopinion> and Facebook > <https://www.facebook.com/latimesopinion>* > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Bruce Majors <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> >> >> ------- >> >> >> >> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raimondo-trump-media-bias-20160802-snap-story.html >> >> **** >> Angela Keaton >> Executive Director >> Antiwar.com >> Los Angeles Office: 323-512-7095 >> San Francisco Office: 415-520-6845 >> >> We are already against the next war. >> <https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/41729-already-against-the-next-war> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','politicalforum%[email protected]');> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','politicalforum%[email protected]');> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
