The left preaches an unbiased media that is blatantly anti-Trump wheres the objective coverage?
Hillary Clinton was asked the other day what unforeseen threats might be facing the country, and she went on a riff about how the “objective” media need to develop “a consistent narrative about the danger Trump poses.” If the term “objective” means anything, it would seem that outlets and reporters can either remain objective or develop and drive a negative narrative about a candidate they oppose. Pick one. As we all know, the press long ago chose the latter option, but there’s still a vocal left-of-center contingent that believes that the media aren’t comprehensively and blatantly anti-Donald Trump enough. They are constantly working the refs, even though the refs are already wearing the jerseys of the home team and keeping their flags in their pockets almost no matter what its infractions. According to their theory, the press needs to do more to highlight all the crazy things that Trump says, the assumption being that if the public learns more about them — or they are reported in a more alarmed tone — it will be a grievous political blow to him. The media need to decide whether they really want to stop fascism in America or not. The fact of the matter is that Trump already gets buckets of harsh and disapproving coverage, so it’s not clear whether a few gallons more will make a difference one way or the other. In a post titled “Legacy Media Is Failing Us Hard,” substacker Jay Kuo complains of how the media covered Trump calling Kamala Harris “mentally disabled” at a Wisconsin rally. This was a crude and unworthy insult that, as Kuo grudgingly acknowledges, got extensive coverage. There were headlines all over the media about it.To cite just a few, “The Memo: Trump sparks new furor with attacks on Harris’s mental capacity”; “Trump takes dark rhetoric to new level in final weeks of 2024 campaign: ANALYSIS”; “Donald Trump falsely calls Kamala Harris, Joe Biden ‘mentally impaired’ again, ramping up attacks”...