Several recent articles are spotlighting a ridiculous transparency in the way the U.S. media is covering the 2016 Presidential Election.
The New York Post has one such outline titled “American Journalism Collapsing Before Our Eyes“:
[…] The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.
The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.
Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang, suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.
By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion. (read more)
This article highlighting the ridiculous nature of the broadcast MSM falls on the heels of an LA Times Op-Ed last week which finished with the following quote that is particularly apropos:
[…] Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.
Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire.
Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration. (read more)
BIAS – How bad is it?
Well, when you have people willing to go back through months of New York Times articles to see if there really is something to this discussion, well, you can be guaranteed there’s more than a few alarm bells ringing.
[…] I have read every article on every op-ed page since May 26. There were lots of articles before that—the Times writers and editors have been fairly obsessed with Trump for all of 2016—but I limited the study to the past 86 days. (link)
And their conclusion to reading 86 days worth of coverage from the New York Times:
- Anti-Trump: 70
- Pro-Trump: 0
- Wishy-washy: 4
- Anti-Hillary: 3
- Pro-Hillary: 23
Yep, the results confirm there is indeed validity to those people who point out this ridiculously over-the-top attack against candidate Donald Trump with the specific intention to advance candidate Hillary Clinton. As a reasonably minded person might say, at this point – it’s unequivocal.
However, beyond the bias there’s a bigger question – a question we have framed from the outset of the primary season:
With all of these media outlets having such a transparent bias, why would anyone believe polling from these same media outlets wouldn’t carry the same intention(s)?
That’s where you find the real meat and potatoes, so-to-speak.
How can anyone rely on data, knowing the data collectors hold such an inherent predisposition to frame a very specific narrative? That’s our essence of our point when we direct attention to:
On June 15th aggregate media polling had Hillary Clinton leading by 15 points. On July 15th the same media polling had Trump +17. On August 8th the pendulum swing was back to Hillary +15,…. and now today the media signals of a tied race begin.
It’s all nonsense. All of it. Polls don’t swing back-and-forth 15, 20, 30 points +/- every few weeks. Regardless of how much the media wants to sell this reality, it just doesn’t happen.
Again, just to ensure we are not too controversial with this, we are not saying that “all polling” is statistically manipulated. We ARE saying all MEDIA POLLING, by the same media outlets who are constructing the day-to-day stories, is manipulated.
Here’s one way to look for it. When you see a media poll take note of who is the pollster, who is the public face of the poll. Then take a few minutes, go to their various twitter feeds and look at the history of their conversations about politics.
The pollsters are so full-of-themselves they make no effort to self-censor their political opinions. Mark Murray (NBC Polls), PPP Polls, and Patrick Murray (Monmouth Polls) are exceptionally good examples of pollsters willing to “out” themselves.
How does the bias data translate? Consider Pennsylvania this week: A media poll from CBS finds Hillary Clinton leading by 10 points. A non-media poll from CEPEX finds Donald Trump leading by 5 points. Both of these cannot be simultaneously correct.
The disconnect between the visible reality of enthusiasm, engagements, rally attendance, social media mentions, direct small dollar donations to the Trump candidacy, and monitored web traffic matrices – and the media narratives that are in direct opposition – has even captured the attention of Sharyl Attkisson who looked into some of the polling:
[…] Today, we look at a Washington Post/ABC News poll that also purports to show a widening Clinton lead over Trump – by 8 points: 50% to 42%. This may well be the case. However, looking at the poll sample numbers, there’s some relevant context not reported in news stories. (read more)
The end result of Attkisson’s analysis identifies the same perspectives within the originating question. The corporate media polling carries the same inherent bias as the corporate media journalism.
Here’s another example:
With the election still a few months away the media can cling to the hope they will successfully be able to create a self-fulfilling-prophecy.
However, eventually as the days of October begin to slip away, the media is going to need to save face and reverse months of these presentations.
Because it’s not going to be close folks. It won’t even be close:
Hillary Clinton has a ceiling around 56 to 58 million votes, and that’s a generous presentation. (With considerable crossover President Obama captured 63 million in ’08). The more likely scenario for Clinton is 53 to 56 million.
What is Hillary Clinton doing to give her “supporters” a reason to vote for her? The entirety of her campaign approach is currently centered around giving her supporters a reason not to vote for Donald Trump….
It won’t work.