If there is one lesson that has already been learned from the 2016 election, it is that the media does actually matter . . . just not in the way that we had hoped. There has been a pronounced and rising bias against Donald Trump in the media. Some of the negative stories can be laid at the candidate’s own feet for controversial statements and actions. However, it has taken me back how consistent and aggressive the anti-Trump coverage has been in the mainstream media. It is as if Trump was declared the sole exception to the cherished media neutrality rules in this country. However, there has been an interesting response from the public, which views the mainstream media as a critical part of the “establishment.” The more the media drumbeat the call to defeat Trump, the more the public seems to swing toward the candidate. At the end of this election, the media needs to seriously examine its conduct in coverages, including the many Wikileaks emails showing both bias and coordination in favor of the Clinton campaign. One start would be something that I have long advocated: the media must stop endorsing political candidates.
Media endorsements have long been problematic for me. Reporters and editors insist that they are honest brokers of the news and neutral in their treatment. They then come out and advocate for one to win — often with little surprise to readers given their past coverage. The media endorsement is based on a belief that the media is in a unique position to tell voters which is the best candidate. It is a conceit that undermines their credibility and fuels the type of bias that we have seen in this election.
This is not an indictment of all reporters. I write and work with journalists and the vast majority take serious efforts to maintain their objectivity even when they do not like a candidate like Trump. It can take a lot of effort with a candidate singling you out in a massive crowd for name calling and derision. Most do an incredible job in overcoming their natural feelings toward someone who is relentless in his attacks. Yet, Trump is right about the overwhelming tenor of coverage and the comparison of the coverage given Clinton.
Media endorsements blur what should be a bright-line rule of neutrality. The media should inform not direct the public. There has been too much of the latter in this election.
The “great ones” like Edward R. Murrow were honored for their integrity and honesty. The public clearly see little of that in contemporary coverage. It is wrong about the media. There is plenty of both values. There are plenty of honest reporters. However, this is a self-inflicted wound. The response of the public is not just a rejection of the establishment but a clear signal that the public no longer trusts the media. It is the establishment. The more that the media portrays Trump as threatening the stability of Washington or the country, the more some voters are drawn to him. Many want change at any cost and, for better or worse, Trump is viewed as change. The media has much work to do to convince the public that it is not just the handmaiden to the establishment. Dropping media endorsements would be a significant, if largely symbolic, start.
What do you think?
I’m just glad the media didn’t suppress one of Trump’s low information surrogates, Scottie Nell Hughes, talking about “Mazel Tov” cocktails.
I am not so concerned about this, but I think what you will see in coming days a push to control the Internet. Clinton was sideswiped by it, and it has been a direct challenge to the corporate/government overlords. As hard as the fight was against the corporatist Clinton, the biggest challenge may be to maintain an open Internet. Time will tell.
Insightful and spot on! Obama had a shot at it and the effort was foiled by a combination of grass roots and a few large corporations (such as Google) that -by exceptional circumstances- were on the same page. A few things came out of that. 1) Net neutrality (narrowly) lived another day. 2) We learned that while grass root efforts can be successful (in this case solidly pushing the case to protect the internet as is over the finish line), the cost in terms of human effort is enormous. In other words, there is no practical way to repeat such effort as many times as needed with all the issues desperately in need of it. And finally, alas, even if it were easier to make public opinion heard, it still -apparently- requires that at least some of the giant corporations are in agreement; a rare alignment in the best of times.
Killary is amazingly vindictive. She will go full bore (behind the scenes) against net neutrality and will go public -bully pulpit- if it looks to succeed.
And make no mistake. The king is gone to his great place in the sky, Goldman Sachs; long live the queen!
Anyone that actually wants “Fair and Balanced” reporting will know it when they see it. Actually, they will know it when they “feel” it and what’s fair and balanced will be largely dependent on one’s worldview. Until the people align on a rule of law worldview then we will continue to have these media outlets selling their own version of fair and balanced.
I can’t watch any media outlet , it’s either overtly or covertly anti trump and CNN is a joke
While there is plenty of grist for the mill when it comes to criticizing the media, it is difficult to think of a a more absurd way to criticize the media than whining about the “unfair” coverage given to Trump by the media.
And what Bill H said.
Why do many think that media MUST be unbiased, fair, and so on? Nothing, Constitutionally or otherwise, says this must be the case. In the beginning many publications were established by partisan groups in order to further their cause.
Having said that, yes, there are many publications (in the broad sense) which try to be “fair and balanced,” succeeding to various extents. And even self-admittedly biased journals have reporters and writers who try to be in the “middle.” Bully for them although it’s not required.
I greatly prefer an unbridled media as it offers a system of checks and balances. It prevents information and events from being buried. And it affords anyone (even more so these days) to disseminate their views.
My only objection is the prevalence of outright lies and sledgehammer reporting (continuing to push debunked stories and ideas).
From 1949 until the Reagan administration, the FCC implemented the “Fairness Doctrine,” which required that on-air news and public affairs programs be, in fact, “fair and balanced.” The Supreme Court even ruled that the Fairness Doctrine was constitutional.
Not quite. Quiting from WaPo, the FD “required to include opposing opinions on the topic under discussion. … and required any broadcasters who endorse political candidates to invite other candidates to respond. ”
The current unfairness and unbalancedness of talk radio (from many/most/all sides) demonstrates the FD is no longer in effect and, basically, First Amendment issues support my original assertion.
Newspapers should not endorse candidates. Look at Hitler. Look at Mussolini. Look at FDR. They all three had newspaper endorsements.
Law professors should stay out of politics too.
I could not disagree more. In fact it was printed media which was created for the express purpose of endorsing political causes which evolved into what we know as the news media today. The problem is the lack of diversity in those endorsements, and the single point of view presented to the public, caused by the consolidation of corporate ownership.
When I was growing up, even smallish cities, little more then towns, had a morning and an evening paper. Without fail one would be left and the other right, and people read both. This presented the voting public with real information, or at least with an opportunity to read endorsements of both viewpoints.
Bill H,
I remember those days too.
Excellent point.
Edward R. Murrow should be indicted for selling and promoting cigarette smoking to children. So should Walter Cronkite. Millions are dead because of those two buffons.
How not to agree with Turley on journalist endorsements of ineluctably corrupt political hacks! In fact, how can an honest person possibly support a shameless liar like Hillary Clinton? Unlike Turley, I’m not at all convinced there are “plenty of honest reporters” out there! Test the waters! Well, Turley comes from a point of relative fame, whereas I certainly do not! Test the waters! Well, I’ve done that and found plenty of obedient see-no-evil, hear-no-evil “reporters.” Their jobs depend on obedience. Hell, I was mugged in Baton Rouge and couldn’t interest the Advocate in publishing my little account of the mugging… by three BLACK youths. Hell, I battled the tenure machine at Fitchburg State University and couldn’t interest the Sentinel & Enterprise in printing my little account of academic corruption. Hell, for a speech crime, I was permanently banned w/o due process by my neighborhood library, Sturgis Library, one of the oldest in the country, and, unsurprisingly, couldn’t interest the Cape Cod Times or Barnstable Patriot in publishing a little account of the banning…
The same goes for corrupt academe and its mob of professors. Careerism is the root of all evil. Professionalism is the root of all evil. Stand up, speak your mind, not the party line and be demonized as UNPROFESSIONAL! Well, that just happened to me in academe… and I am proud to wear the UNPROFESSIONAL label amongst the mob of academic professionals…
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident
todslone@hotmail.com
A tribute to CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite. Back then, they told it like it was.
Jerry – Walter Cronkite was a military strategist who realised the Vietnam was lost even when it wasn’t. He told it like he wanted.
I thought it was well understood the Cronkite was the beginning of the end for good journalism. He was as partisan as they come.
Paul Schult..
Like many in the media, Walter Cronkite supported LBJ’s massive escalation of the Vietnam War in early -to -mid 1965.
Three years later, after the 1968 TET offensive, he has an “epiphany” and reverses course.
Congress, the media, and the American public were all solidly behind LBJ’s Vietnam policy, at least through 1967.
The debate that should have occurred on 1964 and 1965 exploded in 1968, long after “the train has already left the station” and the U.S. went from 20,000 advisors (1964) to 540,000 combat troops.
With the exception of Sen. Morse and Gruening, Congress unanimously past the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964.
For the next c. 12-18, there was an opportunity to “put the brakes on” before we became mired down with over a half million troops committed.
But Cronkite and most of his media collegues were too busy playing the role of LBJ cheerleader to express opposition early on.
One of my relatives was in Vietnam, and he said there were still veterans from WWII and Korea in the service. He says they could have kicked North Vietnam’s a$$ back to the Stone Age, invaded, and re-united the country. But, they were kept in “contain” mode. I wasn’t even born yet, but I tend to believe him.
He also said the Tut Offensive or whatever, was a big bust, like The Battle of the Bulge in WWII, and that it would have been easier to attack after that.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky…
The Tet Offensive was a massive North Vietnamese/ Viet Cong assault on multiple fronts.
The Viet Cong suffered enormous losses, and were seriously crippled for the rest of the war.
The N. Vietnamese regulars were also badly mauled during Tet.
Unfortunately, the VC and N. Vietnanese were willing to take disproportionately high casualties.
They might suffer 5,000 KIA in a week of battle, but knew that the 500 U.S. KIA would wear down American public support.
So U.S. military victories did not shore up support if they resulted in high ( by our standards) U.S. casualties.
Another factor that “turned” public support during Tet (Jan.-Feb.1968) was the three years of protracted stalemate preceding it.
There had been,numerous overoptimistic projections about how we were turning the corner in the Vietnam War, and the fact that the enemy could mount that size of an offensive
…even a militarily unsuccessful offensive…caused more and more skepticism in America.
Newspapers are becoming less relevant so their opinions should also be less relevant.
Paul, this is true. I think only local dailies will survive as they actually have to answer to their communities. Buh-bye NY Times and Wash Post, etc.
Blame the MSM because Trump tweets misogynistic remarks at 3 am.
And blame the media because Trump makes racist and bigoted comments?
I think the media should have called him out more on his bigotry.
They whimped out.
Due to Comey and the MSM’s coddling of Trump this race is too close to call.
Dave,
Maybe they were afraid of being sued.
My Shared Shame: The Media Helped Make Trump
Nicholas Kristof
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/sunday/my-shared-shame-the-media-helped-make-trump.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fnicholas-kristof&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Although many of us journalists have derided Trump, the truth is that he generally outsmarted us (with many exceptions, for there truly have been serious efforts to pin him down and to investigate Trump University and his various business failings). He manipulated television by offering outrageous statements that drew ever more cameras — without facing enough skeptical follow-up questions.
It’s not that we shouldn’t have covered Trump’s craziness, but that we should have aggressively provided context in the form of fact checks and robust examination of policy proposals. A candidate claiming that his business acumen will enable him to manage America deserved much more scrutiny of his bankruptcies and mediocre investing.
All politicians spin, of course. But all in all, I’ve never met a national politician in the U.S. who is so ill informed, evasive, puerile and deceptive as Trump.
When the fact-check website PolitiFact was ready to choose its “lie of the year” for 2015, it found that the only real contenders were falsehoods by Trump. So it lumped them together and awarded the title to “the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump.”
His spokespersons on the MSM are not worth listening to with the exception of the well informed Kelly Ann. He ran a crap campaign.
What do I think? How about a return to the Fairness Doctrine? How about Fox News actually being “Fair and Balanced,” and not just the propaganda arm of the Republican Party? How about overturning Citizens United? (“one person, one vote” has been replaced by “one dollar, one vote”) That’s what I think.
Jay,
Please present an example of how Fox isn’t fair and balanced. Also, why just Fox? Why aren’t you calling for all of the others to be fair and balanced? Cue the crickets….
Jim, Fox ran the most fair and balanced debates that were lauded by even liberals. Wikileaks has shown us how CNN and CNBC coordinate w/ Dems on their debates.
And yet Trump carried on about blood coming out of Megyn Kelly’s orifices. What a creep.
He is a meany. Ever hear of “sticks and stones?”
I’ll tell you this. In my admittedly few viewings of Fox News coverage, I never failed to see an opposing presenter given time to speak. On the rare occasions when MSNBC even had a Trump spokesman on the panel, they were uniformly shouted down of filibustered. Make of that what you will.
It’s observations like this that make me toy with the idea we are about to go through a polar shift where the right changes places with the left (not meaning that they change all their positions however – rather the enlightenment part (( the one the Dems sort of stumbled upon with the New Deal – which was in reality simply a compromise giving as little to the working class as possible to avoid American royalty meeting the same fate as the frogs))). They, back to the right, may come up with the next Lincoln – again! Oh rats, says Demorat, foiled again!
Anyway, it’s a fun idea.
On the other hand, Hannity and Colmes was my experience with Fox and “fair minded” and it was neither fair nor minded. Colmes was a planted stooge and Hannity was as ugly, nasty and willfully blind as any Rachael Maddow. That was some time ago and I’ve been seeing these surprising movements so that POV could be subject to considerable drift.
Nick, FOX10 in Phoenix also broadcast Bernie’s rallies.
Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly…..
Jay,
Hannity and O’Reilly aren’t news shows. They are opinion shows. Nice try. So again, please give an example of Fox news not being fair and balanced. Also, please restate your call for all of the other networks (including the one giving Hillary the questions to the debates) to be fair and balanced. I must have missed those rants.
Watch Special Report hosted by Bret Baier, the best show on Fox.
All my right-wing friends certainly take Hannity and O’Reilly to be news shows.
For my own $0.02, I think the Fairness Doctrine should be re-imposed. That would obviously cut down on the viability of a lot of cable network programming, but I would be OK with that.
“re-imposed”
Telling word choice.
Oops! Meant to reply here when suggesting you watch Special Report hosted by Bret Baier. Best show on Fox – not opinion, not biased.
The acting head of the DNC was fired from CNN because she fed some questions CNN was planning to ask at town halls and debates to Hillary so Hillary could plan her responses. In other words, she used her position at CNN to conspire with Hillary to cheat. And you are whining about Fox not being “Fair and Balanced.” Seek help.
Why would Clinton turn over Citizens United? She has benefited greatly from all the money flowing in.
What Mespo said.
Brexit, the Colombian FARC amnesty, and this presidential election have shown how the MSM is not only part of the elite, but their derision for just regular people is palpable.
Here’s Proof That the Media Helped Create Donald Trump
Harvard study finds the press was complicit in the rise of the Republican candidate
http://fortune.com/2016/06/14/media-trump/
“Of all the indicators of success in the invisible primary, media exposure is arguably the most important,” the report says. “Media exposure is essential if a candidate is to rise in the polls. Absent a high poll standing, or upward momentum, it’s difficult for a candidate to raise money, win endorsements, or even secure a spot in the pre-primary debates.”
According to the study, major news outlets—including CBS, Fox News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, USA Today, and the New York Times—covered Donald Trump’s campaign in “a way that was unusual given his initial polling numbers.” That is to say, the Republican candidate got a high volume of coverage even before his polling numbers justified it. Not only that, but a majority of the coverage was positive in tone, according to the Shorenstein Center research.
When his news coverage began to shoot up, he was not high in the trial-heat polls and had raised almost no money. Upon entering the race, he stood much taller in the news than he stood in the polls. By the end of the invisible primary, he was high enough in the polls to get the coverage expected of a frontrunner. But he was lifted to that height by an unprecedented amount of free media.
Meanwhile, the Democratic race got less than half the coverage that the Republican race did, the researchers found. Later on, Bernie Sanders started to get a lot of interest and much of it was positive, but Hillary Clinton had the most negative coverage of any candidate for either party, the Center’s report says. In 11 out of the 12 months that were studied, the amount of negative news outpaced the positive news, “usually by a wide margin.”
There isn’t even a pretext to objectivity or fairness. The rule is Trump bad; Hillary good. And the corollary seems to be: there shall be no reporting to contradict that narrative. In 40 years of watching politics, I’ve never seen more of an abdication of journalistic integrity. The same thing is happening on college campuses where the only free speech permitted by the faculty is leftist free speech. And for the record, I’m not a Republican.
The left/right axis is loosing relevance faster than the axis of evil (in fact, much faster), even in Universities. What is emphasized is neoliberal and neoconservative ideology with a few leftish wing vestiges for window dressing. Try Harvard and tell me if you think anything about it is leftist. Snort.
The amazing thing to me is the consistency throughout all groups; MSM, schools, universities, court rooms, and so on. What ever you can read or watch or listen to, short of some web sites or some dusty stacks, is off the same goo.
Anyone who would call Goldman Sach’s HIllary “Left”, for instance, has got issues.
I agree Hillary is not a leftist; she’s an opportunist. Harvard is another matter where many children of privilege get a healthy dose of leftwing ideology to go along with rowing on the Charles.
What century? The Harvard I know is in Massachusetts, Cambridge to be more precise. It has presidents like Larry Summers who would defend your right to cut out someone’s heart if you could scam a nickle doing so; who publicly and privately sneers at anything even remotely smelling of the New Deal, who is a picture perfect postcard example of a neoliberal.
A rather telling way to get to Harvard is via Brattle St. to Mass. Ave. where the only thing left about it is that Harvard Yard is on the left hand side of the street. Brattle Street, BTW, has some of the richest and/or most influential people on earth as it’s residents, a good number of them (the president is just off Brattle Street) are the tenured elite of Havaaad who make palace(y) decisions. They are ultra neoliberal (that does not mean right) with a micro thin veneer of leftish vernacular. Anyone who threatened their investment portfolios or that of their precious Harvard (billions upon billions) would be viewed dimly at best (to use their highly euphemistic turn of phrase) – but if you think that makes them leftist – heaven come to the aid of your eye lids. Like Hillary, Haaavaaad has a “private and public” side. If you actually go there, speak with the professors, or attend church services, or go to any of the various functions, or get invited to any of the parties, and strip off a few token phrases, it’s pure 100% neoliberal cant.
Harvard graduates, like their counterparts at Yale and the other ivys, go directly to the heads of global industry, technical, law, business, software, finance, medical or manufacture. They are identical to the products and services they rule over and the atmosphere they exude: a type of contradictory inherited meritocracy called the corporate elite for short. Those of them who have leftist ideologies that you can see in practice make hen’s teeth look more common than grains of sand. Except for a few identity issues, always good to obfuscate the important stuff, economics of the elite, what Harvard is smoking ain’t leftist weed.
Yes, you have the odd ball nontenured teacher who is allowed to say, “Karl”, 5.7 times per semester and who fills out the required party list, you even have a few theorists truly to the left who are either too famous or too well connected to toss on their asses, but that does not a left wing institution make nor is the ideology taught even vaguely reminiscent of something from the left unless you subscribe to the new tectonic switch theory in which the left is argued to be swapping poles with the right.
This bruhaha of allowed political speech, which I don’t think is that much of an issue at Harvard anyway, is -in general- just so much public relations vapors used to divert attention from what’s really being taught.
Here’s the Harvard I’m talking about. Not a lot of political diversity:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/01/harvard-faculty-backs-democrats-6-time-says-school-paper.html
Then,of course, there this little policy. Not much use for traditional clubs either:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/5/6/college-sanctions-clubs-greeklife/
Kurt Eichenwald
✔
@kurteichenwald
5. While Trump suggests he has an MBA from prestigious Wharton graduate school, only attended undergraduate program for 2 years. Has no MBA
11:37 AM – 7 Nov 2016
Guess his rowing days in the Schuylkill were limited.
Good examples, Mespo, but I’m not sure we disagree that much. For one, please please please don’t use the term Democrat as interchangeable with leftist. It’s been a 40 year creep, but today’s Democrats are neoliberals first and foremost and frankly, most are far to the right of Eisenhower.
As to your second link; a nasty business indeed – but it is nonetheless an identity issue mainly, not a significant marker of the left/right axis where clear distinctions are mostly economic in nature. Political correctness has been abused by both sides at one time or another and neither the left nor the right have a monopoly on lack of diversity.
Sounds like we do agree in the main.
Well stated mespo!
Yep, Even Anthony Bourdain said he did not care to dine with Trump.
Maybe Trump should have kept Newt and Rudy in the backround. They are on the MSM day in and day out as spokespersons. Do we really want Rudy for attorney general and Newt for Secretary of State? Think the answer is going to be “no”.
alejandro – I wouldn’t eat with Anthony Boudain. He is too full of himself.
Paul, I like Bourdain a great deal- his books are excellent and he manages to work in some cultural/historical lessons in some of his shows. The one he did in the Congo was heart wrenching. Also a good one on bombing Cambodia. I know he had to do some shuckin’ and jivin’ and have dinner with Obama in Vietnam (Obama was over there pushing the TPP and US weapons sales), but I attribute that to the fact that he had to please his corporate sponsers. And he does not pretend to be a journalist unlike Rachel Maddow, Megyn Kelly, and the rest of those sell-outs.
Well said mespo and good observation by BB. We have seen in this election cycle the “cult of personality” and the “Extra-Governmental Duopoly” laid bare before us. Hasn’t been much discussion concerning platform, just personality and style. I call out the narrow and shallow Democratic supporters on this blog in particular, whose response to platform positions as “Trump is worser, he calls people names…” Too bad adulthood is in seriously short supply here.
Insightful and spot on! Obama had a shot at it and the effort was foiled by a combination of grass roots and a few large corporations (such as Google) that -by exceptional circumstances- were on the same page. A few things came out of that. 1) Net neutrality (narrowly) lived another day. 2) We learned that while grass root efforts can be successful (in this case solidly pushing the case to protect the internet as is over the finish line), the cost in terms of human effort is enormous. In other words, there is no practical way to repeat such effort as many times as needed with all the issues desperately in need of it. And finally, alas, even if it were easier to make public opinion heard, it still -apparently- requires that at least some of the giant corporations are in agreement; a rare alignment in the best of times.
Killary is amazingly vindictive. She will go full bore (behind the scenes) against net neutrality and will go public -bully pulpit- if it looks to succeed.
And make no mistake. The king is gone to his great place in the sky, Goldman Sachs; long live the queen!
Opps, this comment was meant for your comment below on net neutrality and it’s slim chances of survival with Clinton.
Well said, mespo.
Hey, Mespo, I think I just saw a pig fly over my house! We agree on something! You are right about the narrative, and it is much bigger than just “Trump bad, Hillary good.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Robert Reich: These three Trump enablers made this election season unbearable
Donald Trump has done incalculable damage to America, in part because of these three enablers
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/07/robert-reich-these-three-trump-enablers-made-this-election-season-unbearable_partner/
The second set of Trump enablers is the media.
“Trump is arguably the first bona fide media-created presidential nominee,” concluded a study by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
By mid-March, 2016, The New York Times reported that Trump had received almost $1.9 billion of free attention from media of all types — more than twice what Hillary Clinton received and six times that of Ted Cruz, Trump’s nearest Republican rival.
The explanation for this is easy. Trump was already a media personality, and his outrageousness generated an audience — which, in turn, created big profits for the media.
Media columnist Jim Rutenberg reported CNN president Jeff Zucker gushing over the Trump-induced ratings. “These numbers are crazy — crazy.” CBS president and CEO Leslie Moonves said, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. The money’s rolling in and this is fun.”
Not only did the media fawn over Tump but it also failed to subject his assertions, policy proposals and biography to the scrutiny normal candidates receive.
Fox News, in particular, became Trump’s amplifier — and Fox host Sean Hannity, Trump’s daily on-air surrogate.
Mainstream media failed to call out the Trump campaign for its anti-semitism.
edm, FACTS are NOT welcome here. Turley cites no facts, or even names anybody, just an amorphous media. I know of no TV network other than FAUX which has endorsed any candidate, and even they did not do so formally. Turley even refuses to advocate putting back in the FCC rule of balanced broadcast media. That would go a long way to restoring some sanity to the airwaves, OUR public property. While he says only that he does NOT mean ALL media, he does NOT give the same credit to Clinton when she said that many of Trumps supporters are deplorables. She did not say ALL, yet Turley thinks that HE should be given a pass on this while Clinton should NOT. Parroting Trump is not being neutral or rational.
randyjet,
I have noticed that there are many rabid right-wingers commenting on this blog who froth at the mouth when people disagree with them.
Why shouldn’t the media call out Trump for his bigoted, racist, and misogynist comments…his stance on climate change…his lies, etc.? They gave him a pass in the early going of his presidential campaign. The media helped to create this monster. Had they called him out long ago–maybe a saner candidate like Kasich would have been the Republican nominee. I think Clinton would have had a harder time campaigning against someone like him.
“I noticed that there are many right wingsrs commenting on this blog who foam at the mouth when you disagree with them”.
It’s more likely, edm, that your core intellectual dishonesty is what many find irksome about you.
And your arrogance.
You may have noticed that some of the “rightwingers” who take issue with you are former Sanders supporters.
Most dutifully sold out to Hillary to become her loyal minions.
If you read the comments here, you’ll find that not ALL Bernie supporters sold out.
Include those in “the right wingers foaming at the mouth” if it makes you feel better.
C. 36 hours to go, and probably thousands more words of pro-Hillary ads you need to spew out.
tnash,
My arrogance? That’s really funny! You have presumed to know what I think and claimed that I am a Hillary supporter. And others like Squeeky accuse those of us who disagree with her are stupid or “frigging nincompoops.” When someone expresses an opinion different from yours on Clinton/Trump, they are branded as “intellectually dishonest?” Nice going!
Who, pray tell, are the Sanders supporters here who take issue with me? Would you care to name them and provide proof of your claim?
I doubt many–if any–Bernie supporters will be voting for Trump. If they have or plan to then THEY are the sellouts. Bernie got the Democratic party to adopt much of what he wanted on its platform. He is campaigning for Clinton. Trump is anathema to Bernie. Most likely, Bernie supporters will…
1) Vote for Hillary
2) Vote for a third party candidate
3) Not vote
edm
The Bernie supporters who did not sell out can identify themselves.
You could figure it out for yourself if you read their posts.
It’s not my place to identify “x “or”y”, as Bernie supporters not transforming into HillaryStooges.
Again, read their posts and figure it out. If you need help, maybe they will explicitly tell you outright.
I don’t have to “presume” anything about you to call you arrogant, a Hillary supporter, and intellectevtually dishonest.
Your comments fully exhibit thosehose characteristics, as I pointed out again yesterday.
When a person writes “people who think…people like ME (edm), then goes on to say that Hillary is the only reasonable choice, that is A. arrogant and B. A Hillary shill.
You’re so busy cranking out Hillary ads that maybe you don’t even remember what you’ve written.
tnash,
You say it’s not your place to identify the Bernie supporters that you claim would never vote for Hillary…that take issue with me. You made the claim. Now you refuse to back it up. So it goes.
If you bothered to read a recent post, one already identified herself.
,Take a break from your robocomments and read the posts.
You probably won’t get him to write up a list of people he knows who have, in the past or present, known or identified with someone from the communist party though I suppose you can try. This business of giving everyone assignments demarks that precise moment when one realizes they holding an empty hand and everyone else knows it.
Hate to say it Randjet, but it’s pervasive in the media, I’ve seen. CNN is the worst offender but MSNBC and NBC are a close second. I saw a study that found 60% of the US population thinks it’s unfair or biased..
Reich has lost all credibility. All that about the dangers of the TPP and now he’s shillin’ for Hill. Pathetic.