Me­dia un­doubt­edly has agenda

Cecil Whig - - OPINION -


The Whig’s re­cent editorial re­ported the pub­lic’s well-de­served dis­trust of the me­dia.

When I see the ac­tual tran­script of a can­di­date’s speech, pub­lic state­ment or event and then read the re­ported ver­sion, it of­ten ap­pears to­tally dif­fer­ent. By edit­ing out words or phrases, cher­ryp­ick­ing quotes or tak­ing it out of con­text, even adding a word, or con­flat­ing it with some to­tally un­re­lated past state­ment, the news re­port at­tacks the can­di­date’s views and im­age. There is also the pa­per’s choice of what to re­port, the amount of space given each can­di­date, and the repet­i­tive re­port­ing on in­signif­i­cant items while ig­nor­ing im­por­tant is­sues.

This dis­trust is fur­ther pro­moted by the ob­vi­ous goal of many main­stream news­pa­pers, such as the New York Times and Wash­ing­ton Post, to de­feat Trump and sab­o­tage his cam­paign. The Post’s cadre of colum­nists are faith­ful lap­dogs for Clin­ton and the Demo­cratic Party, and un­for­tu­nately the Whig feeds their sub­scribers a strong weekly diet of noth­ing but neg­a­tive and some­times hate­ful at­tacks on Trump from th­ese Post colum­nists. There has prob­a­bly been no week since last Novem­ber with­out sev­eral WaPo columns at­tack­ing Trump. My for­mer re­spect for Michael Ger­son has dropped to zero.

This is not a “Trump Ef­fect,” but a con­tin­u­a­tion of al­ready bi­ased re­port­ing and bla­tant goal of mis­lead­ing read­ers. About your lead-in sen­tence “to prop­erly se­lect trained sources” — the Wash­ing­ton Post is a bad choice. If it weren’t for the Whig’s good re­port­ing of lo­cal news and events, I would have left long ago.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.