After all, they are doing it so consistently and blatantly already. Why not be transparent about it?
Case Study 1: CNN Host Brooke Baldwin
On Baldwins’ “CNN Newsroom” this week, Trump supporter Gina Loudon was talking about the New York Times report on Donald Trump’s dubious conduct with women. The Trump flack brought up Bill Clinton’s $850,000 settlement payment to Paula Jones for allegedly sexually harassing her. Baldwin cut Loudon off, saying, “Okay, let’s not go there.”
Wait—why not go there? The issue raised by the Times involves Presidential and leadership standards. The Times’ position during Clinton’s administration was that this was “personal conduct” and irrelevant to the Presidency. Is it or isn’t it?
The reason Baldwin doesn’t want to “go there” is that she, like so many of her CNN colleagues, is a virtual pro-Hillary Clinton operative masquerading as a reporter, and tilts the content of her show accordingly. Later, Baldwin proved it: After Loudon concluded by noting that Clinton should have spoken out in defense of women her husband had abused if she was the champion of victims of sexual abuse that she claims to be, Baldwin said,
“I think the Clinton camp — and, listen, I would say this either way, just to be fair to both of them — but I think the Clinton camp would point to, you know, her resume of lifting women up through the years.”
Yes, they would say that, Brooke, and that would be a dodge and an evasion, which, if they said it on a competent and non-partisan news broadcast, the host would be obligated to reply, “That isn’t responsive. Is Mrs. Clinton an advocate for women, or will she support their abusers if it’s politically beneficial to her?”
Instead, you’re giving the evasive Clinton spin yourself! Why is that?
Because CNN, with the sole courageous exception of Jake Tapper, is all in for Hillary, and will distort journalism standards and ethics as necessary to elect her.
Case Study 2: Fox News Host Megyn Kelly
However, her producers obviously made a deal to have The Donald headline the first prime time “Megyn Kelly Presents,” so the result would be “Megyn Kelly Presents an Infomercial on Donald Trump.” As a result, though falsely representing the interview as a real, no-holds-barred interview, Kelly asked questions not quite as fatuous as Walters’ “If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?” to Katherine Hepburn, but not as essential as “Why are you denying that you posed as your own publicist?” and “Why are your news media surrogates so incompetent, even though you swear you appoint the best people?” and “Now you say your ‘wall’ is negotiable. Why should your supporters believe anything you say?” either.
I would have liked to hear Trump’s answer to those questions, or rather his incoherent blather in response to them followed by sharp cross-examinations by Kelly, who has the lawyer skills to do them. Tragically, she sold out her own integrity and her viewers, and the nation, to get “access” and more exposure. Shame on her, and Fox, and Fox News for letting her do it.
Writes Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post:
“Conservatives who used to defend Fox from liberal accusations that Fox was not news at all would point to legitimate coverage from reporters such as Major Garrett and James Rosen, arguing that the nighttime lineup was different. Now the entire enterprise, accelerated by Kelly’s dive into compliant interviews, is blemished. Cringe-worthy cheerleading is becoming the dominant tone, with only pockets of genuine news coverage.”
Fine. Let those pockets announce that they, unlike their colleagues, aren’t part of a partisan campaign effort. The rest should just level with us, and admit they are the biased, bought, untrustworthy, unethical fake-journalists they are.
ADDENDUM: This doesn’t justify its own post and really doesn’t fit in this one, but I have to mention it. This week, on The View, Whoopie Goldberg, a smart but uneducated and ignorant woman who never let the lack of facts or understanding stand in the way of her certitude, said..
“Here’s what I say about the e-mails. It’s what I asked her. How is it if these were so classified, classified, okay, that nobody who got those e-mails said, hey, Hil, maybe you shouldn’t be sending this across this? Nobody said Jack until she said she was running. I find that amazing.”
And why didn’t anyone tell her she was Secretary of State, and that by definition her communications about sensitive subjects were to be treated as classified until it was determined that they weren’t? Why didn’t anyone tell her to use a State Department system and Blackberry for anything work related? Wait…”they” did, because that was policy.
Just give as disclaimer up front, that’s all I ask!