Where was the bias?

Obama thinks the me­dia just didn’t hug Hil­lary close enough

The Washington Times Daily - - EDITORIAL -

Pres­i­dent Obama, still on the scout for mean­ing in what hap­pened to the Democrats in Novem­ber, sug­gests now that Hil­lary Clin­ton lost be­cause of me­dia bias. If the pres­i­dent ac­tu­ally be­lieves that, he’s surely the only man in Amer­ica who does.

The ma­jor me­dia made a virtue of try­ing to de­stroy Don­ald Trump. Some of the re­porters even ad­mit­ted — boasted, ac­tu­ally — that they al­lowed her cam­paign min­ions to edit their copy. Their “edit­ing” might have made their copy smoother and more read­able, but at the price no rep­utable cor­re­spon­dent would pay.

Mr. Obama’s mis­trust of the me­dia is shared by mil­lions of Amer­i­cans, but not be­cause the me­dia has been too hard on him, his poli­cies or Mrs. Clin­ton. Their mis­trust stems from their ob­ser­va­tion that the ma­jor me­dia had been splash­ing in Hil­lary’s tank for months.

In Septem­ber, the Gallup or­ga­ni­za­tion re­ported that fewer Amer­i­cans trust in the me­dia “to re­port the news fully, ac­cu­rately and fairly” than at any time in the his­tory of Gallup polling, which goes back seven decades, and that self-iden­ti­fied Re­pub­li­can trust in the me­dia had dropped from 32 per­cent to a mere 14 per­cent in just one year.

That dis­trust in­creased as the cam­paign wore on. The vir­u­lence of the at­tacks, not only on the Re­pub­li­can can­di­date but on the de­plorables who in­tended to vote for him. Dis­trust per­suaded many of the de­plorables to refuse to share their feel­ings with re­porters, poll­sters or even their neigh­bors. It wasn’t just Hil­lary who re­garded de­plorables try­ing to find work in “fly­over coun­try” as “de­plorables,” but ev­ery­one in the Hil­lary cam­paign who dis­missed them as too dumb to un­der­stand why the lib­eral world view was the only le­git­i­mate view.

In­side the bubble where Mr. Obama and the Democrats live, ev­ery­one toes the “pro­gres­sive” line. Re­fus­ing to par­rot the party line is a sign not just of bias, but of evil. If they’re not brain­washed by the “alt-right,” the skep­tics are racists, big­ots or will­ing agents of Rus­sia’s Vladimir Putin.

The Wash­ing­ton Post, which pro­moted the no­tion that Don­ald Trump is evil and so is ev­ery­one who sups on his poi­son, at­tacked the Sin­clair Broad­cast­ing Group, which owns 173 tele­vi­sion sta­tions, the other day as if it were the tail of the Trump cam­paign.

The Post’s Paul Farhi, act­ing as om­buds­man for ev­ery­body else, scolded Sin­clair for ar­rang­ing in­ter­views with Mr. Trump for its lo­cal af­fil­i­ates. This was said to have “helped Don­ald Trump’s cam­paign.” This is what re­porters are paid to do, to in­ter­view can­di­dates and let them speak for them­selves. But this year right-think­ing cor­re­spon­dents re­ported from the tank, never wast­ing an op­por­tu­nity to tell read­ers and view­ers how much they de­tested the Re­pub­li­can can­di­date.

In bet­ter times than these, Sin­clair would have been seen as merely prac­tic­ing ag­gres­sive jour­nal­ism — by get­ting re­porters from its lo­cal af­fil­i­ates as close to the ac­tion as pos­si­ble. Some re­porters set­tled for spoon-feed­ing at Clin­ton head­quar­ters, where Hil­lary presided with a big spoon.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.