D*********1 发帖数: 1548 | 1 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-02/3-examples-of-the-media-double-standard-with-trump-and-clinton
According to some estimates, more than 20,000 people turned out Tuesday to
hear Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in critical Loudoun County
, Virginia. To borrow a Trumpism, that's huge but, thanks to the mainstream
press, what you'll hear about the event will likely be how Trump booted a
crying baby from it.
We should be used to the distortions by now, but it's a plain fact that most
of the people covering the campaign are unwilling to give him a fair shake
yet will bend over backwards to put the best face on anything former
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says or does.
The "baby booting" story, judged newsworthy by Politico, reads as though
Trump is a heartless monster. Here's what he said: "Don't worry about that
baby. I love babies. ... Don't worry about it. I love babies. I hear that
baby crying, I like it. What a baby. What a beautiful baby. Don't worry, don
't worry. The mom's running around like – don't worry about it, you know.
It's young and beautiful and healthy and that's what we want."
As a member of the media, I may be confused but it sounds to me like a
marvelous thing to say, especially in light of what was probably the parent'
s embarrassment at how her child was disrupting his remarks. As it continued
, Trump again addressed the child and her mother by saying, "Actually, I was
only kidding, you can get the baby out of here."
Anyone listening can tell the latter comment was meant as a joke. It won't
be reported that way because that doesn't fit in with the narrative the
Washington Post, CNN, the New York Times and the unabashedly liberal
political zines have created. It's only by hearing or seeing the event that
you'll come to understand the truth of what went on.
This is but one distortion; there are plenty more. Following the lead of the
Democrats, the media are demanding Trump apologize to Khizr and Ghazala
Khan, parents of a dead American soldier who spoke at the Democratic
National Convention. Now, I'm not on any of the relevant email lists but I'm
not exactly sure what it is he is supposed to apologize for. The Khans
should have known they were being drawn into a political forum (one from
which they now say they want to escape because they apparently don't like
all the attention) and were opening themselves up to criticism – especially
in the pointed nature of what Mr. Khan said in his speech. Trump certainly
didn't attack them for being Muslim which, it almost goes without saying,
would be wrong.
If the Khans occupy a rarified status because they lost a son in combat then
how does one explain the treatment given Pat Smith and Charles Woods,
parents who lost their sons in the massacre at Benghazi and who both claim
Clinton lied to them, face to face? They are being excoriated for stepping
into the political arena on Trump's behalf but, unlike the Khans, are not
backing down under pressure.
One set of rules for Hillary Clinton and a different set of rules for
everyone else is not only the way she lives her life but the way the media
is covering this election. The latest wrinkle is the emerging demands Ivanka
Trump say something on the record about the way her father treats women and
sexual harassment in the workplace. This may be a salient point (not really
) but some of the same reporters who want a statement from her on these
matters have assiduously avoided posing similar question to Chelsea Clinton,
a woman whose father (why do we have to remind people of this?) had an
illicit sexual relationship with a workplace subordinate young enough to be
his own daughter and then lied about it to the American people after he was
caught. If the shoe were on the other foot I know reporters (and you know
them too) who would fall all over themselves queuing up to ask Ivanka what
she thought about the allegation her father was a rapist.
No one is making this stuff up. We have here three concrete examples of the
disparity between the way Clinton – whom the media loves – is being
treated vs. the way Trump – whom they loathe – is covered. Is it any
wonder he is rescinding the credentials of entire outlets seeking to cover
him on the campaign trail? He knows he's getting a raw deal and is not going
to stand idly by while it happens.
The media is supposed to be impartial. Sadly, it's not – at least not in
this race. For whatever reason, too many of my colleagues – especially the
ones on television (which includes the producers who back them up while
whispering in their ears) have thrown in against Trump. In a situation like
this the only thing I can advise is for voters who want to know what is
going on to use the internet to get to as many original sources as possible.
It's not hard – just time consuming – so that you can decide for yourself
who can be trusted to occupy the highest office in the land over the next
four years which, coincidentally enough, happen to be critical to the life
and future of the nation in a way seldom seen before.
Corrected on Aug. 2, 2016: The original version of this post misspelled
Loudoun County. |
|