Why Are The Media Obsessed With Trump's Controversies And Not Clinton's?

originally posted by: stinkelbaum

clintons controversies have been covered ad infinitum, cleared in courts...

Whoa!!!! That just ain't true.

One person in the media actually gave the answer to this last week. There was an op-ed (I think) in the New York Times by Jim Rutenburg where he stated why the media was against trump and not reporting as they normally would (doubtful) on HilLIARy and her controversies.

Trump Is Testing The Norms Of Objectivity In Journalism

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him? Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place? Covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system. It threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse opponent, Hillary Clinton, who should draw plenty more tough-minded coverage herself. She proved that again last week with her assertion on “Fox News Sunday” that James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had declared her to be truthful in her answers about her decision to use a private email server for official State Department business — a grossly misleading interpretation of an F.B.I. report that pointed up various falsehoods in her public explanations. And, most broadly, it upsets balance, that idealistic form of journalism with a capital “J” we’ve been trained to always strive for. But let’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy.

So, not only are they being biased, but they're being openly biased.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
One person in the media actually gave the answer to this last week. There was an op-ed (I think) in the New York Times by Jim Rutenburg where he stated why the media was against trump and not reporting as they normally would (doubtful) on HilLIARy and her controversies.

Trump Is Testing The Norms Of Objectivity In Journalism

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him? Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place? Covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system. It threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse opponent, Hillary Clinton, who should draw plenty more tough-minded coverage herself. She proved that again last week with her assertion on “Fox News Sunday” that James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had declared her to be truthful in her answers about her decision to use a private email server for official State Department business — a grossly misleading interpretation of an F.B.I. report that pointed up various falsehoods in her public explanations. And, most broadly, it upsets balance, that idealistic form of journalism with a capital “J” we’ve been trained to always strive for. But let’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy.

So, not only are they being biased, but they're being openly biased.

Biased? They are activists now.

Bill Maher is usually tolerable, but he goes off the rails against Trump. It's all a bunch of canned assertions that make no sense, but don't beg for a reply because that would require the other side to stfu and listen.

I saw a youtube documentary (whatever that is) it debunked the 60 Minutes segment on Vince Foster's death.

VERY interesting and relevant, almost required viewing on the subject of HRC.

https://__._/dnc-emails/emailid/12450

Pretty simple. Dnc controls the media narrative.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
Because the leftist controlled MSM has more in common with regimes like North Korea than many want to admit.

Congratulations for one of the silliest posts I've ever read. I'm a member of the media and you have obviously no the faintest idea of how the media works. Comparing it to North Korea is ludicrous.

October 2, 2016

After scanning the various MSM news channels and websites for the past 6 months on a daily basis, It's obvious (and sad) that the Mainstream Media has almost nothing positive to say or write, about Hillary Clinton. Instead, they have DAILY NEGATIVE headlines about Donald Trump. If it wasn't for Donald being such an active campaigner, the clowns in charge of the MSM would have nothing to say, politically.

The whole World is Pointing and Laughing as we speak.. Oooh, Nazi Scientists.. Let's get them over here before they have to face Justice to work on the Nuclear Program and Saturn - 5 Rockets.. Oooh, Quaker Oats testing radioactivity on schoolchildren.. Oooh, IBM, Ford Motor Company et al making money off the Nazis.. Oooh, MK-Ultra Programmes.. Wake Up !!.. Disneyland Forever.. Joke !

originally posted by: DanDanDat

It helps if it fits a well-established narrative about a candidate. And there is no substitute for a high-impact visual element — preferably live video that includes the candidate.

www.npr.org... tter.com&utm_medium=social


NPR wrore a nice article about why Trump is on constant rotation and Clinton's problems are all but ignored.

Clintons problems require thought and are boring to the average person.

Hillary has been vetted in the press for 30+ years, The Donald is new to the vetting scene, so his scandals are interesting.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

My question today is/was why the Mainstream Media doesn't PROMOTE their candidate at least a little bit? Every headline, every day, is anti-Trump. How can they prefer someone who gives them nothing newsworthy to talk about? Are they so dense, not to realize that it will be the same after Hillary is elected? BORING.. (Except for her Health Episodes).