I’ve been noticing this in the past
several weeks. Maybe you have, too.
The media, after finally getting around
to actively and explicitly reporting the grotesquely negative aspects of
Trump’s presidential campaign, are spending more or less “equal time” grinding
away at the Clinton campaign.
Example: a few days ago TheNation.com reported “Hillary Clinton’s [August 25]
speech on the racial bigotry and white grievance that pollutes Donald Trump’s
campaign should turn out to be the most consequential address of the campaign,
even of the decade.”
You can agree or disagree about how
notable the speech was, but there’s no denying that Trump is ringing so many
bells that encourage public display and, in effect, legitimize public
expression of hatred and bigotry against our fellow Americans who don’t have
white skin.
In response, Trump said and tweeted
repeatedly that Clinton is “a bigot.” No details, just that dastardly epithet.
Now,
Joan Walsh at TheNation.com goes on, “…you can dislike Clinton’s speech. You
can fact-check it, and perhaps find something wrong—although to my knowledge
nobody claimed any inaccuracy. But what you really shouldn’t do, if you are a
journalist of any kind of conscience or capacity, is act as though Clinton had
somehow gotten down in the gutter with Trump—merely by describing what Trump is
doing.
....and
on and on....Shame
on American media for hyping their coverage of the campaign for audience
ratings points, and for trying to cover their tracks by foolishly and
fecklessly giving “fairness” a bad name.
I
don’t believe there’s a “media conspiracy” favoring either the right or the
left.
I
do believe that almost all of the media are doing a crappy job. This is
congruence, not conspiracy. It’s worse than conspiracy.
Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment