Mainstream Media loses election

SUBHEAD: The Mainstream Media bet the farm on Hillary - and lost American democracy.

By Charles Hugh Smith on 16 September 2015 for Of two Minds -

Image above: Montage of Dr. Drew Pinsky with Hillary and CNN logo. From (

The Mainstream Media (MSM) has forsaken its duty in a democracy and is a disgrace to investigative, unbiased journalism.

The mainstream media bet the farm on Hillary Clinton, confident that their dismissal of every skeptical inquiry as a "conspiracy" would guarantee her victory. It now appears they have lost their bet.

Let's do something radical and be honest for a moment: the mainstream media has smoothed the path to Hillary's coronation in countless often subtle ways.

MSM "Opinion" hacks have unleashed unrelenting attacks on legitimate inquiries with accusations of "conspiracy" and obsequious kow-towing headlines such as "Can we please stop talking about Hillary's health?"

Suggestions that the Clinton Foundation engaged in "pay to play" during Hillary's term as secretary of state are glossed over; yes, it looks bad, the MSM reluctantly admits, they they hurry to add that no impropriety can be proven in court.

Given the foundation is run by attorneys who obfuscate the meaning of the word "is," do you really think they're going to leave tracks that can make it to court?

The Democratic National Committee's corruption was downplayed, and the mainstream media's pathetic lack of inquiry was of a piece with old Soviet "news": a scapegoat or two is cut out of the leadership photo, and the DNC corruption machine moves on untouched.

This Is How Much It 'Costs' To Get An Ambassadorship: Guccifer 2.0 Leaks DNC 'Pay-To-Play' Donor List

Consider the subtle Orwellian play of The New York Times sidebar headline after Hillary's collapse on 9/11: "Hillary leaves 9/11 event early." Oh really? This was the substance of what happened, that the candidate "left early"?

All through the primaries, when Hillary won the NYT et al. splashed huge headlines declaring her victory. When Bernie won, headlines read "Hillary gains ground," not "Bernie wins another primary."

Rampant election fraud in the Democratic primaries was left uninvestigated, calling to mind the way Too Big To Fail banking fraud was left untouched by the mainstream media, which happily swallowed whole suspect official pronouncements that "subprime is contained" even as the financial system was veering into complete collapse in 2008.

There is an easy way to identify bias that we can all play at home: substitute "Sanders" or "Trump" for "Hillary" or "Clinton".

 If Donald Trump collapsed on the sidewalk and had to be tossed in the van like a sack of rice, do you think the mainstream media would be bleating, "can we please stop talking about Trump's health?" Please don't even try to claim that oh, yes, the MSM would rush to run that headline.

Do you honestly think CBS would edit out a reference to Bernie Sander's fainting "frequently"? Get real, people: the MSM only edits out negative stuff on Hillary.

Zero Hedge: CBS Caught Editing Clip - Bill Clinton Said Hillary Fainted "Frequently"

Do you honestly think a medical doctor with a TV program on CNN who questioned Donald Trump's health would find his show immediately taken off the air? Rather being dropped for questioning the MSM's scheduled coronation of their candidate, the doctor's show would have been pushed into prime-time and placed in rotation.

The mainstream media has failed:
  • It has failed its sacred duty in a democracy to report the facts and let the voters decide what is or isn't important, it has engaged in orchestrated deception, refusing to report facts that cast a shadow over their chosen candidate,
  • It has failed to cast a skeptical eye on its chosen candidate's actions and private accumulation of wealth,
  • It has attempted to block legitimate inquiries into Hillary's wealth and health with crass, propagandistic attacks and smear campaigns against anyone who dares question Hillary's MSM-granted "right" to be coronated president in January 2017.
Look, we understand your fear of crossing the Clintons. Their "Enemies List" makes Richard Nixon's infamous list look like a squabble over seating at a church social. The body count of those who were in a position to rat-out the Clintons reminds observers of the way an astonishing number of eyewitnesses to JFK's assassination turned up dead under mysterious circumstances.

Once again, substitute names. Would the mainstream media be so incurious if Bernie Sanders had accumulated a $100 million fortune via foreign "donations" to his foundation while he was serving as Secretary of State?

If acquiring $100 million in "donations" from overseas dictators and corrupt officials is "normal" for the secretary of state, then where is John Kerry's $100 million in "donations"?

Look, if you love Hillary to death, that's your right. But we as a nation cannot afford to blind ourselves to blatant media bias and propagandistic suppression of legitimate inquiry, even on behalf of politicos we favor.

And Furthermore

SUBHEAD: How about presenting the facts and letting voters decide who's "Fit to Serve"?
By Charles Hugh Smith on 16 September 2016 for Of two Minds -

This simple two-step process would greatly diminish the Ministry of Propaganda's influence.

Here's a radical idea: how about presenting the facts and letting voters decide who is "fit to serve"? Consider the context of this presidential election and the judgment call as to who is "fit to serve":
  1. Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low (Gallup"Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media 'to report the news fully, accurately and fairly' has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history."
  2. Both the Republican and Democratic candidates have highly unfavorable ratings; they may well be the most disliked nominees in American history.
  3. The status quo in which voters are supposed to rubber-stamp the decisions made at the top of the wealth/power pyramid is falling out of favor.
  4. Personal physicians are not disinterested parties; they serve the candidate, not the voting public. Their public claims of "fit to serve" suffer from irreconcilable conflicts of interest.
To best serve the interests of the nation and the voters, I propose that all candidates for the presidency submit to a thorough medical exam at an Army or Navy hospital that immediately releases the full results to the public. The attending physicians' names will be drawn from a pool of qualified staff at the start of the exam, making it impossible for anyone to threaten or buy off the attending physicians prior to the exam.

The exam will include chest x-rays, CT scans, neurological tests and the usual blood work.

The examinations will be overseen by healthcare/medical journalists to insure that the exams adhere to stardard practice and the results are posted immediately without any tampering.

The principles at work here are:
  1. The public has a right to know the facts relating to each candidates' health.
  2. Each candidate is given the exact same tests and treated exactly the same.
  3. The public will decide who is "fit to serve" after reviewing the facts of the matter.
  4. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
If any candidate prefers to keep the results of the health exam private, they can do so by exiting the race for the presidency.

In addition to the medical exam, each candidate will hold a two-hour press conference every week until election day. Representatives of the entire media, not just the handful of mainstream networks and newspapers, will be invited to attend. To secure the room, the public will not be admitted.

Candidates will be invited to sit in comfortable chairs and answer any and all questions on any subject. They will not be allowed to wear sunglasses or be attended by aides. Since the room will be secured (all media reps will be screened for weapons, all entrances properly sealed, etc.), there is no need for Secret Service personnel to hover over the candidates.

Why should any candidate object to these very transparent and uncontroversial demands? Why should any candidate object to a routine battery of medical tests and a weekly press conference?

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.


No comments :

Post a Comment