Media madness when it comes to the Clinton-Trump race

Michael Goodwin:
There is nothing more to learn about Hillary Clinton’s home-brew server, deleted e-mails, chronic cough or anything else that makes her look bad, according to The Washington Post. And The New York Times, stung by Clinton’s woeful performance at last week’s presidential forum, believes the debates are going to be a total disaster unless moderators get much, much tougher with Donald Trump.

To judge from her tone, the Gray Lady finally has found somebody she wants to waterboard. Naturally, it’s a Republican, not a terrorist.

America’s two most prominent newspapers used to compete for Pulitzer Prizes and readers, but now they’re competing to see which can suck up more to Clinton. On Friday, both papers’ editorial pages turned on fellow liberal card-carrier Matt Lauer for his performance as the moderator of the commander-in-chief forum, with The Washington Post blasting him for being too tough on Clinton and the Times accusing Lauer of letting Trump ramble, boast and lie.

The unsubtle point was clear: journalists must focus all their firepower on Trump, or they will get a beatdown from the Clinton Praetorian Guard. She must be protected, even if that means taking the “new” out of “news.” How odd for businesses protected by the First Amendment to demand that others shut up.

Then again, the stakes are high. The best lap dog can expect better access and more leaks from a Clinton White House. Whoppee.

In any other era, there would be staff revolts as both papers trash their standards and torch their credibility in their partisan quest. But Trump Derangement Syndrome is creating an unprecedented spectacle as elite news organizations reveal contempt for their own traditions and the millions upon millions of Americans who don’t agree with them.

Put it this way: With polls showing a tight race, Trump is on track to win at least 50 million votes in the fall. That’s a lot of Americans to dismiss as idiots, rednecks and racists just because you hate their candidate.
I would say the Washington Post is a little further off the deep end than the Times.   I say this as someone who does not have a high regard for Trump or many of his followers.  When it comes to straight news stories the Times seems to be fairer at this point.  But Goodwin certainly catches the attitude of many at these two storied news companies.  I also do not have a high regard for Clinton and think it is a mistake to not cover her transgressions.

There is a large segment of voters who see both of these candidates as equally bad.  Why is the media failing in its responsibility to inform about the bad of both candidacies?


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends

Illinois in worst financial shape, Texas in best shape