Since Nobody In The Mainstream Media Will Flag President Obama’s Outrageous Hypocrisy, I Guess It’s Up To Ethics Alarms. Rats.

I hate this. I really do.

Boy, can you believe Donald Trump suggesting that a Presidential election can be stolen? This guy is a monster!

Boy, can you believe that Donald Trump suggesting that a Presidential election can be stolen? This guy is a monster!

I hate that the astoundingly biased and partisan news media and pundit class refuse to even make a fair pass at doing its job, forcing an ethics blog to place itself in the position of being accused of defending Donald Trump.

Yeccch.

[Rueful but amused aside regarding the biased and partisan news media: Late Sunday evening,  Chris Cillizza, who authors the political blog for the Washington Post, tweeted: “Let me say for the billionth time: Reporters don’t root for a side. Period.” This was a manifestly absurd assertion, and made me wonder about Cillizza, who may not “root for a side,” but whose own left-leaning and pro-Clinton bias creeps into his work at regular intervals. But the gods of irony were ready: Monday morning the Center for Public Integrity released its 2016 campaign analysis that showed that U.S. journalists gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to  Clinton’s campaign. CPI identified 430 people as “journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors ­— as well as other donors known to be working in journalism.” 96 % gave money to Clinton, according to federal campaign finance filings. That’s 96. Ninety-six. NINETY-SIX. As in “all but 4%.” Got that? Are we clear? Those 430 journalists gave $382,000 to Clinton and $14,000 to GOP nominee Donald Trump. Fifty journalists  gave to Trump; 380 gave to Clinton. Many more members of the media almost certainly donated, and almost certainly in a similarly unbalanced split, but the law only obligates candidates to disclose the names of donors giving more than $200 in a single election cycle. In its report, CPI noted that even though many news organizations have policies against donating to politicians, those organizations’ reporters donated anyway. Poor, naive, Chris Cillizza, having proven that as a reporter, his confirmation bias prevents him from seeing what is all around him, at least had the integrity to follow up his previous tweet (“Period.”) by tweeting…

“Well this is super depressing. NO idea why any journalist would donate $ to politicians.”

Well why don’t you think about it, Chris? I’m sure it will come to you. But I digress...]

I know this is a political campaign and that hyperbole and loose facts are as American as apple pie. However, Barack Obama is President of the United States, and he, even more than most, must not actively seek to re-write history, especially since so many of his supporters have the historical perspective of mayflies. Therefore he must not be allowed to escape proper condemnation for these statements he made  in a campaign speech attacking Donald Trump. Yes, only condemnation will do, for his statements were dishonest, untrue, and constituted hypocrisy as its worst. Presidents should be better.

Obama had the gall to lecture Donald Trump with two head-exploding statements for anyone whose memory extends back before the Bush presidency, and one that should have triggered mass cranial eruptions from anyone conscious during the past 8 years:

1. “One of the great things about America’s democracy is we have a vigorous, sometimes bitter political contest, and when it’s done, historically, regardless of party, the person who loses the election congratulates the winner, reaffirms our democracy and we move forward.”

After the 2000  election was decided because the Supreme Court stopped a recount that would never end unless it was stopped, Al Gore indeed did the noble and statesmanlike thing and conceded, congratulated President Bush, and then sat by as Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe (a Clinton henchman, now governor of Virginia), Joe Lieberman and Democrats at all levels proceeded to pronounce the election stolen and rigged, not only undermining trust in the system, but also impugning the Supreme Court. Remember “Selected, not Elected,” a Democrat mantra, chanted among thousands of protesters at Bush’s 2001 inaugural? No? Neither does Barack Obama, apparently, because no Democrat would ever dream of attacking the legitimacy of an election after the votes are in. “We move forward!”

Right.

Democrats kept claiming fraud, or attacked the system itself (Gore won the popular vote and lost the Presidency in the Electoral College just like Jackson, Tilden, and Cleveland, but not having the historical perspective of competent citizens, Democrats treated this anomaly as a singular atrocity engineered by Republicans) with their usual assistance by the partisan news media, for eight years. The intent was to deprive President Bush of legitimacy for exactly the same reasons birthers like Donald Trump tried to deny Barack Obama’s legitimacy. It works.

The theme was repeated with variations after the 2004 re-election of Bush, when Democrats claimed that the state of Ohio was “stolen” by Republicans. John Edwards—remember him?—led the way; it is apparently losing vice-presidential nominees who the Democrats give the job of undermining public trust in democracy.  Jesse Jackson—remember him?—former Democratic Presidential candidate, father of a Congressman (now jailed), called for an “insurrection” over the 2004 results. Jesse then, like Al Sharpton now, was never publicly rejected by prominent Democrats—reliable blue votes, you know. Go Jesse!

I wrote then (December 15, 2004), and I take pride that I wrote:

Jackson is intentionally inflaming a deep wound on our democratic institutions, inflicted by a random confluence of events in the election of 2000 that made a definitive result unattainable. The Democratic Party, egged on by its apparently scruple-free chairman Terry McAuliffe, continued…for four years!… to encourage the myth that the 2000 election was “stolen.” It was successful at this dubious objective: polls show that nearly 50% of the electorate, almost exclusively Al Gore voters, believe this untruth. (Indignant Kerry supporters in the media made much of the fact that about 70% of “ignorant” Bush voters believe that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the September 11 attacks. Well, guys, almost 100% of Kerry’s voters buy the stolen election lie….)

They believe the election was stolen despite the fact that no Florida vote count ever even had Gore in the lead; despite the fact that the multiple hand-recounts undertaken by the supposedly liberal-biased news media after the election showed Bush winning legitimately; despite the fact that the only significant and documented factors costing Gore votes (the candidacy of Ralph Nader and the inexcusably confusing “butterfly ballot” that probably gave Neanderthal conservative Pat Buchanan accidental votes from a decisive number of bewildered Gore voters) had nothing to do with the GOP; and most of all, despite the fact that the best result the Democrats could reasonably have hoped for, a disputed vote count in Florida with no clear victor, would still have resulted in a Bush victory by the Constitution’s mandated solution of a vote by the (GOP dominated) House of Representatives.

Of course, what really made this misrepresentation an easy sell was the fact that Gore won the popular vote. If you plumb the soul of the angry Gore voter, what he really believes is that the Constitution stole the election.

All right…it was cynical and intellectually dishonest for the Democrats to exploit this issue: it divided the country and robbed President Bush of any chance of a national constituency, but they thought it would win them the White House in 2004. ….Intentionally and deceptively eroding the public’s belief in the American democracy in order to win an election is a terrible and unethical trade-off… It is time to heal the wound and move to strengthen our democratic institutions and the public’s faith in them….

Jackson and others do not want to let the wound heal. They are playing a dangerous and irresponsible game with the future of America by clawing at the scab and pouring salt into the gaping wound. They are risking the creation of a permanently skeptical electorate that will always believe that if its favored candidate loses, it must be because the other side cheated. This can lead to more cheating. This can lead to violence….And because America is the role model for democracy all over the world, this can undermine democracy itself. Sad to say, it is likely that Jesse Jackson is risking all this, not because of a genuine belief that there was such massive election fraud that a recount in Ohio will change the election results, but for narrow and self-serving political objectives: he is willing to damage America’s bond of faith and principle with the American people to keep African Americans distrustful of the government and bolster Jackson’s fading prestige and influence.

It is hard to imagine anything more despicable.

“It is hard to imagine anything more despicable.” I agree with President Obama that it is despicable for Trump to do this, but I do not care to hear any Democrat lecture the country about the dangers of sowing suspicion, division and distrust. That was their game. What Trump is doing tears at a foundation of trust that Democrats intentionally weakened, and not just during one campaign cycle, but for years.

No, Obama daring to say now that he has never heard of such a thing isn’t as despicable, and at least his words now express what some Democrats should have had the integrity to express from 2001 to this point. It is incredible, however, that the man can be so hypocritical so arrogantly. If Trump’s conspiracy theory endangers us now, it is only because Democrats wounded our society by intentionally undermining public trust for political gain.

2. “I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place. It’s unprecedented. It happens to be based on no facts.”

This is deceit. No, Presidential candidates haven’t tried to discredit elections prior to the vote, but it’s a technical point when prominent Democrats like Robert Kennedy, Jr and John Kerry , as well as the left-wing blogs and websites, have repeatedly implied that Republicans stole previous elections. (Ann Althouse makes the valid point that if you really think the election is going to be stolen, the time to say so is before it happens, not after.)

As for “It happens to be based on no facts”KABOOM!

That one sent my head onto the ceiling. No facts? A court just ordered the IRS to finally stop playing games with conservative political non-profits. Reports show that State Department personnel tried to bargain with the FBI to declassify one of the e-mails incriminating Hillary Clinton. President Obama lied, saying that he had no knowledge of Clinton’s private server, and now we have evidence that he communicated through that server using a false name. The administration just pressured Ecuador to shut down Julian Assange’s e-mail access–you know, the guy who is dumping all of those embarrassing hacked messages and speeches? The press and media, except for a few islands of conservative bias, have, per the New York Times, suspended journalism ethics to defeat Donald Trump. Democrats have fought and demonized efforts to do something so basic as to require identification at the voting booth, all while encouraging illegal immigrants to come and stay….and maybe vote.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were perfectly willing to rig their nomination process to ensure Clinton’s nomination.

I don’t think that the 2016 election is rigged, but don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that there is no reason for Trump or anyone else to worry about it. This is an inept, corrupt and dishonest administration, supported by a partisan and unethical news media that allows its favored President’s administration’s  transgressions and failures to be hidden, obfuscated and buried whenever possible. This is a President who hails from the most corrupt major city in the nation, and who had his path to the Senate cleared when the Chicago Tribune got the sexually provocative divorce files of his favored Republican opponent to be unsealed, with the resulting scandal forcing his adversary to drop out too late for the GOP to find a viable substitution. Obama’s administration has shown contempt for law and the Constitution on many occasions, and is dominated by a party that increasingly adopts totalitarian attitudes and methods, trying to restrict free speech and due process of law. Its current candidate for the White House favors government confiscation of guns, and we know that she intentionally acted to foil public access to her communications while risking national security to do it. She, her husband, and such minions as Cheryl Mills, John Podesta and Paul Begala have shown that they are full believers in the ruthless political principle that “the ends justify the means.” Would Hillary Clinton rig the election if she could?

Good question.

3. “If whenever things are going badly for you and you lose, you start blaming somebody else, then you don’t have what it takes to be in this job.”

Do I really have to explain why it is–GRRRRROAAAWRRRYUJYYTTTTTAHHHHHHHH!—(sorry, I lost control there for a minute) infuriating to have to hear the single most unaccountable, excuse-making Chief Executive in U.S. history dare to say this about anyone, even an utter fool like Donald Trump?

I’m not going to bother. How dare this man, of all people, say that?

Is Obama right about Trump and the danger of talking the way he is? Of course. How disgraceful then, and typical, that he could not say so without setting a new record for political hypocrisy.

36 Comments

Filed under Character, Citizenship, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Government & Politics, History, Incompetent Elected Officials, Journalism & Media, Leadership, U.S. Society

36 responses to “Since Nobody In The Mainstream Media Will Flag President Obama’s Outrageous Hypocrisy, I Guess It’s Up To Ethics Alarms. Rats.

  1. Rick M

    Excellent piece. This may be one of the best ones you have written.

  2. Steve-O-in-NJ

    It was the 2000, not the 2008 election, that produced these accusations. Sorry.

    • It is a real problem that reading for typos doesn’t pick up mistakes like that. Thanks: fixed.

      • Rusty Rebar

        While we are on the topic… and no huge deal here but the paragraph that starts:

        No, Obama daring to say now…

        There is a line:

        It is incredible, however, that the man can be so hypocritical so arrogantly.

        Are you saying he is arrogantly hypocritical, or did you mean to write

        “It is incredible, however, that the man can be so hypocritical so arrogant.”?

        • What? “arrogantly” is an adverb modifying “be so hypocritical.” He is incredibly arrogant while being hypocritical.

          Your sentence is only grammatical if a comma is added: “It is incredible, however, that the man can be so hypocritical, so arrogant.”

          I could have written that, too, but it’s a different thought.

  3. Wayne

    This should be the media’s theme song: “Reunited” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vml8gRsFdIE

  4. Fabulous piece!!!!!!!!!
    🙂

  5. Grampy_bone

    Aww poor Jack! This election is going to give you ulcers.

    Back in the 2000’s when I was a liberal I recall reading that something like 2-3% of the votes on either side are presumed fraudulent. Neither side pursues the matter aggressively because they don’t really think it’s worth it and they each do it just as much as the other. So claims of voter fraud are just bluster.

    Trump sounds like all my liberal friends back then; stolen election this, false president that. It definitely sounds like pre-sour grapes.

    Media bias isn’t “rigging” because the media doesn’t collect votes. Persuading people to vote the way you want them to is called “politics.” Trump may as well complain that grass is green. I wonder how big a deal it really is, most people get their news from their preferred biased source anyway.

    If Trump does lose the election I believe it will be because of the GOP strife and infighting. Granted you are correct about Trump’s low character and behavior, the GOP handled him in pretty much the worst possible way. This was their election to lose and they blew it.

    • Media bias deceives the public, withholds facts from them that they need to know and have a right to know, and completely warps the democratic process which depends on an informed electorate. You don’t like “rigging,” pick another word. It’s an unfair advantage, and harms democracy.

      Meanwhile, what’s “poor jack” supposed to mean, jerk? Condescend to me again, and you’ll be free to go spam diving. You apparently can’t read. The post has nothing tod do with Trump at all. Why are you wasting time and space explaining that his complaints are dumb? Why are you simply regurgitating what I wrote as if you didn’t read it? Yes, there’s a reason why Trump sounds like your liberal friends—I just spent 2000 words documenting it in the post, which wasn’t about voter fraud, either.

      Jesus.

      • There is something distinctly familiar about Grampy_bone’s pseudonym and the style of commenting. I think I’ve come across that commenter before and not in a good way; but hey, this is a different site, maybe it’ll inspire a different overall persona too.

      • Chris Marschner

        “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum….”
        ― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

      • Grampy_Bone

        “Poor Jack” was meant to sympathize with your obvious distress at writing this post, not condescend. Nuance is lost in text.

        I see your point on media bias, but concepts such as “equal time” are long gone. The need for an ethical media in the abstract is not supported by the populace at large; most people want news that confirms their views. I agree that’s not healthy, but neither are alcohol and cigarettes. You can’t force people to eat healthy.

        I agree completely that the media deceptively tricks, lies, influences, and distorts. But there’s no media monopoly anymore; print is nearly dead, TV is following. There’s a multitude of news available to all sides. Outlets should declare their bias and make it known. Let people decide if they want to read avowed left- or right-wing sites.

        Sorry for going off topic.

        • “Poor Jack” was meant to sympathize with your obvious distress at writing this post, not condescend. Nuance is lost in text.

          Write clearer.

          I see your point on media bias, but concepts such as “equal time” are long gone.

          Equal time has nothing to do with bias. That (bad) law involved transparent advocacy.

          The need for an ethical media in the abstract is not supported by the populace at large

          Ethical lawyers aren’t supported by the public at large. The First Amendment isn’t supported by the public at large. Ethics aren’t decided by majority vote. That’s not a logical nor a coherent argument.

          Most people want news that confirms their views.

          Irrelevant. Journalism has ethical rules, requirements and traditions. Childremn would eat canady all day, but responsible parents feed them what they need.

          I agree that’s not healthy, but neither are alcohol and cigarettes.

          Are you TRYING to annoy me with ridiculous rationalizations?

          You can’t force people to eat healthy.

          They get to make the choice, yes, but they have a right to have a choice. If the news isn’t reported objectively, then they don’t.

          I agree completely that the media deceptively tricks, lies, influences, and distorts. But there’s no media monopoly anymore; print is nearly dead, TV is following. There’s a multitude of news available to all sides. Outlets should declare their bias and make it known. Let people decide if they want to read avowed left- or right-wing sites.

          What kind of choice is THAT? Pick the biased reporting you like? That’s what we have NOW.

          Sorry for going off topic.

          It’s pretty easy: if you want to explore your own tangent, then write that this is what your comment is doing. Nothing wrong with that.

          • Grampy_Bone

            Yeah, pick your preferred bias. That’s the ‘More Speech’ solution. More news, lower barriers to entry. Half the people in the country are walking around with a camera in their pocket. Document everything. Blogs like yours are valuable as watchdogs. When an outlet claims to be unbiased while being incredibly biased, that’s deceit. Since the First Amendment protects hyperbole, opinion, vitriolic speech, etc., requiring a disclosure of bias seems like the best we can do.

            What’s the alternative? Maybe an “MPAA” for the news? Or something stricter, like a “Journalist Bar Association.” The SPJ with more teeth.

            It could work, or it could be the Politburo. The Bar association seems to do a good job policing the ethical conduct of lawyers, from my casual observer point of view. Is that correct?

    • JutGory

      Media Bias is “rigging.” The leftist view is that objectivity does not exist. So, bias is okay. In fact, it is presumed. Conservatives disagree. They think objectivity is possible and, if not possible, is a standard to which one should strive. Giving in to the notion that bias is inevitable and should not be resisted rigs the coverage, rigs the votes, and, thus, rigs the election.
      -Jut

  6. Chris Marschner

    Great Post!

    Question for people smarter than me: If voter ID laws actually suppress legitimate voting by minorities why do antagonists to such laws spend millions of dollars fighting such laws in court when they could be using the resources to help people get photo ID’s? Obviously, if there is empirical evidence showing voter ID laws disproportionately impact minorities, the elderly, and other groups that tend to vote one way or another then we must know who they are, otherwise there can be no evidence of disproportionate impact either. Helping people obtain photo ID’s would allow them to open real bank accounts rather than having to pay as much as 10% to get a check cashed and participate in society in a more meaningful way.

    Seems to me that everyone likes to blame something else for what could be an easily solvable problem. If there is something we can do to improve the actual or perceived integrity of the results then we should do so rather than simply say there is no evidence of a problem. Unreported crimes are still crimes even though there is no evidence to validate it.

    • Question for people smarter than me: If voter ID laws actually suppress legitimate voting by minorities why do antagonists to such laws spend millions of dollars fighting such laws in court when they could be using the resources to help people get photo ID’s? Obviously, if there is empirical evidence showing voter ID laws disproportionately impact minorities, the elderly, and other groups that tend to vote one way or another then we must know who they are, otherwise there can be no evidence of disproportionate impact either. Helping people obtain photo ID’s would allow them to open real bank accounts rather than having to pay as much as 10% to get a check cashed and participate in society in a more meaningful way.

      A better question.

      If requiring a photo ID to vote suppresses legitimate voting by minorities, does this not mean that New York City’s laws on firearms suppresses legitimate gun ownership by minorities.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371256/voter-id-and-gun-rights-charles-c-w-cooke

      I understand if voting rights organizations do not take a side in this any more than they take a side in the legality of abortion.

      But what of the NAACP? Or the Democratic Party?

      • Chris Marschner

        It is a better question but much harder to answer. If the issue is that it is too hard to get a voter ID then the solution lies with what should (can) we do about helping people get the needed document and not how do we keep them from not meeting a basic requirement. If you can bus people to the polls and demonstrations you can bus them to a government facility that provides free photo ID’s.

        Once that problem is remedied then we should challenge the others on the very basis that they have used to claim voter suppression.

  7. Will you explain # 3 for me? I don’t understand. Thank you in advance.

    • Obama has continued to blame his predecessor for his failed economy, for his failed foreign policy, for the debt explosion that he has presided over. He has blamed his failure to pass legislation on Republicans rather than his own poor negotiating and compromising skills. He blamed the failure of his Syrian policies on his advisors. He still blames the Bush tax cuts, though his all Democratic Congress voted to continue them, and he signed off. The man does not accept accountability for anything, because he is a clinical narcissist. No President in history continued to pass the buck backward for even a year after being sworn in: Obama continued doing so well into his second term.

      Here’s a very incomplete list from his FIRST term only.

      • http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/minnesota-mark-dayton-obamacare-not-affordable-229690

        “The governor wants to make it clear that the Republicans in Congress are to blame for their unwillingness to make improvements necessary to make the Affordable Care Act more successful,” Dayton spokesman Sam Fettig said in an email to POLITICO.

        I do not know if Governor Dayton really believes that, or if his spokesman was doing damage control after some lively communications to the governor from the other Minnesota DFL leaders.

        Dayton’s comment could be the subject of a blog post all its own.

      • Wow thank you!! Why do people say he’s the best president we’ve ever had then? I don’t get it? I hear it ALL THE TIME…

        • Bluntly, because he’s black, and also because he plays President well in some ways, like Reagan.

          Blacks say that because they are loyal and because of group identification. Whites say it because they can’t admit to themselves that the first black President has been a near total failure in nearly every substantive area. That’s a tragedy for everyone, blacks included.

  8. Do I really have to explain why it is–GRRRRROAAAWRRRYUJYYTTTTTAHHHHHHHH!—(sorry, I lost control there for a minute) infuriating to have to hear the single most unaccountable, excuse-making Chief Executive in U.S. history dare to say this about anyone, even an utter fool like Donald Trump?

    I’m not going to bother. How dare this man, of all people, say that?

    Is Obama right about Trump and the danger of talking the way he is? Of course. How disgraceful then, and typical, that he could not say so without setting a new record for political hypocrisy.

    Donald J. Trump is the President Barack Obama and his apologists deserve.

  9. Tim LeVier

    It’s rather incredible that a company has a policy and they don’t enforce it when evidence is readily available that the policy has been violated. Every media company that has a policy against political contributions should be examining the contribution disclosures and comparing it against their employee database and taking appropriate actions. …but that’s just me talking as a compliance guy in a company.

  10. CPI identified 430 people as “journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors ­— as well as other donors known to be working in journalism.”

    Does, or should working in the field of journalism automatically disqualify one from making campaign contributions? Is there or should there be a distinction between what a journalists beat is, and what or who they contribute to? Do the actions of media executives donating to, and hosting fundraisers for politicians count as part of the liberal media bias, even though these actions are not generally viewed as violations of newsroom policies? Not sure I’m ready to comment on the other points in your post Jack, but am interested in your thoughts on the ethics, and the reality as it relates to your ‘rueful aside’ that opened this post. Thanks….

    • UR: I think the practice of prohibiting journalists from contributing is silly. However, if they do contribute, then they 1) should disclose it (Recall that Keith Olberman’s demise at MSNBC began when he praised lawmakers without disclosing that he financially supported their campaigns) 2) They should avoid involvement with reporting on news stories where that support raises question of impropriety.

      The issue is bias, not contributions. But such an overwhelming partisan unbalance certainly suggests that the observation of bias in reporting is supported by the likelihood of bias arising from marination in unvarying partisan sentiments. Are editors to be trusted being as critical of reporting on candidates they favor as those they oppose? At such an extreme imbalance, the liberal orientation becomes a culture, and culture, the saying goes, is like water to a fish. It affects everything, but those who live in it are unaware of it or its effects.

      As with education, where the imbalance is similar, the lack of ideological diversity is a warning sign. Echo chambers are not fair or critical, as a rule. Different world views lead to different perceptions. I don’t see how anyone (like me) who supports a diverse news room in gender, age and race to maximize different viewpoints and perspectives can shrug off stats that show that over 95% of a profession have the same political orientation.

      • urbanregor

        Well, as I suspected, we agree on 90% of this. I too think it silly to restrict journalists from contributing, that Keith Olberman was wrong, not just in failing to disclose, but based on his position, was in violation of company policy (even though the policy was and remains flawed). The issue IS bias. We’re assuming though, that all journalists that contribute to campaigns are universally liberal, and thus biased. I suspect that there remain degrees of bias as there are degrees to most things. Newsrooms notoriously lack all kinds of diversity, thus having to rely on professionalism that, as we continue to see, is inconsistent. I’m not convinced though that the 95% figure representing liberalism in newsrooms (or journalism?) is accurate. In an age where our consumption options of news is more varied than ever, and unfortunately where we tend to isolate ourselves in ideological silos, even if we take the 95% figure as true, wouldn’t the effect be somewhat muted based on our consumption patterns? I for one, and I know you consume a variety of news from different sources (even at risk of your ever exploding cranium!). But given the current ideological split, couldn’t a case be made that consumers of news generally see and interpret what they already believe in, regardless of the source and authors perceived bias?

        • UR: yes. During the baseball play-offs, partisans of all teams allege that that national broadcasters seem to be unfairly tilting elsewhere. But the liberal bias of news coverage is so pervasive, with so many smoking guns (the recent wikileaks e-mails showing chummy contact between the Clinton Campaign and journalists, John Harwood, wo was so hostile moderating a GOP debate, consorting with the Clinton campaign, a Politico reporter running his story about leaked John Podesta e-mails by John Podesta, Donna Braizle passing on info from her CNN post to assist Clinton, etc. But remember, Cillizza didn’t say that reporters wern’t biased, he actually said that they don’t favor one candidate over another! Surely evidence that reporters give money to one candidate and not the other shows that assertion to be ridiculous, and and strongly suggest that the fish can’t detect bias, either/

          • Urbanregor

            Funny you mention baseball- I’m listening to my Indians (sorry about ending big Papis run) on the verge of getting to the World Series!!!!

            • THEY WON! Love it: Congratulations! I questioned Tito’s gambling with his bullpen against the Sox and with the starters in this Series, but they did it. Wow. And with all those injuries. I’m so happy for Indians fans. They have suffered enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s