American press playing Russian roulette with Election coverage

October 16, 2016

bor1From the first amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”.

The Founders of this great nation felt so strongly of the importance of free speech and a free press to the protection of a free and independent people they made that concept the first, not the second, not the third, but the first, amendment to the Bill of Rights. That if the Republic they had risked so much to form was to survive, the individual, not the government must reign supreme.

But what happens when that free press abridges itself? What happens when that “free press” abandons its special place under the Constitution in favor of promoting its own group ideology and supporting but one single political party? What happens when the desire to promote replaces responsibility to inform?

You get the 2016 Election coverage, that’s what. You get a mainstream press and corporate media network reallocating every spare resource into destroying one side while doing everything possible to prop up the other.

You get over here the “hey America, here’s every bit of dirt we can scoop up on Donald Trump, true or not, that shows you how big a scumbag he is and how he’s completely unfit for the office of the Presidency” and you get over there the “don’t pay any attention to Hillary’s history, or Wiki Leaks revelations, or what you’re seeing with your own eyes, because we’ve already told you she’s the most qualified person to run for President in the modern times.”

You get the Boston Globe op/ed editor coordinating with the Clinton campaign on which day to run a favorable column to give Hillary a bigger presence because of a known news story coming out the next day.

You get a New York Times reporter giving the Clinton campaign veto power over what quotes he could use in exchange for access and time with the candidate.

You get Donna Brazile, CNN and ABC contributor at the time (along with being vice chair of the DNC) sending an email to the Clinton campaign with the subject line “From time to time I get the questions in advance” for a heads up on a death penalty question for an upcoming primary debate. A question that Politico reports had the exact same wording and spacing of the question submitted the next day by co-moderator Roland Martin.

You get a public inundated with “who said what when or did this then” regarding the Republican candidate and see the bigoted and demeaning email exchanges between the top staff of the Clinton campaign regarding Catholics, evangelicals, Latinos, and working class Americans, either outright ignored or buried under a mountain of anti-Trump vitriol so large said public won’t see them even if they do get covered.

You get these last weeks leading up to November 8th, not filled with coverage of who is the candidate more likely to protect or to dismantle the Constitutional principles America was founded upon, or who told a Brazilian bank group: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders”, or who wants to appoint Supreme Court justices who will use their opinions to shape a “living” Constitution rather than interpret same Constitution as the founders intended.

No, you will instead see these remaining weeks filled with the type of “journalism” that, until this election, was reserved to supermarket check out aisles. And that same press will also tell you that you shouldn’t believe the Wiki Leaks emails about Clinton because the FBI is blaming the Russians.

Yes, the very same FBI that decided not to put Hillary Clinton under oath or even transcribe said interview, are now supposed to be credible on a “trust us, the Russians did it” claim.

Such is the state of “journalism” today and such is the perilous state of the future of this Republic.

PUBLISHER’s NOTE:  A version of this column first appeared in the October 16, 2016 print edition of the Joplin Globe.

Tags: , , ,

Comments are closed.


May 2022
« Apr