There should be very little doubt that over the course of the last eight years that which was once referred to as our ‘mainstream’ media has now morphed our ‘state-controlled’ media. And as such they proven itself to be no longer relevant as they threw everything they had at Trump, and yet he still won. And we know that because of a study released Wednesday by the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, that makes clear the fact that media coverage of Donald Trump was 77 percent negative during the general election. And like I said, he still won the election.
Trump stated the obvious during the campaign when he said the media was biased against him in favor of Hitlery. This study found that while Hitlery also received more negative coverage than positive, it was only 64 percent negative in the general election. Although, I don’t recall seeing that much in the way of negative press directed at her, and what negative press there was it dramatically less incendiary than what was being directed at Trump 24/7. When it came to questions of the candidates' fitness for office, we were told that Hitlery and Trump each had equally high negative numbers, coming in at 87 percent.
The study's author, Thomas Patterson, wrote, "Were the allegations surrounding Clinton of the same order of magnitude as those surrounding Trump?" Mr. Patterson is a Bradlee professor of Government and the Press at the Harvard Kennedy School. And he went on to write, "It's a question that political reporters made no serious effort to answer during the 2016 campaign." Prof. Patterson also wrote, "A healthy dose of negativity is unquestionably a good thing." And added, "Yet an incessant stream of criticism has a corrosive effect. It needlessly erodes trust in political leaders and institutions and undermines confidence in government and policy."
Still, The Washington Post announced back in early May how it was assigning 20 reporters specifically to look into Trump's past. The Post's Bob Woodward said at the time it also was working to get to the "essence" of Hitlery, but wouldn’t say whether the paper had assigned 20 reporters to go digging around in her past. Negative presidential campaign coverage is not new, especially when it comes to those running under the Republican banner. Negative stories have outweighed positive ones for all candidates since 1980, according to this study. It peaked in the contentious 2000 Bush-Gore election at 75 percent for both candidates combined.
According to this particular study, we’re told that Hitlery actually received more negative coverage than Trump when the two parties' primary campaign seasons were included in the figures. We’re told that Hitlery received 62 percent negative coverage to Trump's 56 percent. Hitlery faced attacks from rival Bernie Sanders and his supporters in the primaries, but Trump also was attacked by some of his 16 GOP primary opponents. But I find it rather hard to believe that over the course of the entire campaign Hitlery received more negative media attention, both in volume and intensity, than did President-elect Trump.
The negative press coverage isn't limited to political races, at least according to this study. Negative stories also are far more common than positive ones on topics such as immigration, Muslims, health policy and even the economy. And where I disagree with Prof. Patterson is when he says, "The real bias of the press is not that it's liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the negative." Because there is most definitely a very obvious liberal bias when it comes to how members of the press choose to report on our political parties. A bias that results in a willingness on their part to exaggerate, distort, or blatantly lie about positions held by candidates on the right.
While this particular study focused on news reports by ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the number of left leaning media outlets is near to limitless. In there was even a fair amount of negative reporting that was seen coming from Fox News, supposedly a right leaning news organization, on the candidacy of the candidate Trump. And it was even on Fox News that, except for Sean Hannity, coverage on the candidates came across as being pretty obviously pro-Hitlery. To the point where I went from being a pretty regular viewer, to rarely watching at all.
The real problem however is not the liberal media's goal to bring up negativity. The real problem is that "reporters" and "editors" are taught in "journalism school" that socialism is the perfect form of government and that the phrase "all men are created equal" means everyone, regardless of ability, status, position, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, are to be considered equal at all levels and ages. The true meaning behind the phrase "all men are created equal" was to point out that all men are born with equal opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits. The fact that some make better decisions than others in life is the problem that liberals have.
And those in our ‘state-controlled’ media frequently confuse the words "truth" and "fact". They seem to think they’re interchangeable, and when all else fails, it’s acceptable to simply make shit up. They are taught, indoctrinated if you will, that God doesn't exist so therefore the government becomes God. And once one can be made to accept that cockamamie premise, it becomes all the easier to be convinced that one’s individual rights do not come from God but are instead allocated by the government. And what the government giveth, the government can also taketh away. Hence that rationale for cutting God out of the loop.
Far too many members of the media are thoroughly convinced that they are the smartest people to ever have existed, they fully believe they need only to listen to themselves on all matters, and anyone who contradicts them is obviously wrong, regardless of what the facts, the truth, or simple the reality of the situation may say. History means absolutely nothing to them (even when they have degrees in it) because history is populated with people of inferior intellects. From this viewpoint, there's no reason to learn from the past; what could these brilliant and enlightened folks possibly learn from all the backwards idiots who may have come before them?
Leftist hubris will come to destroy Western civilization if we don't find a way to bury it. Leftists have turned our education system into indoctrination camps, our ‘news’ media into what has become essentially the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, and our entertainment industry has become a sort of brain-killing drug for the masses instead of a thought-provoking expression of diverse ideas. The end result is that we’re confronted by imbeciles experiencing rather bizarre little meltdowns because they can't handle someone saying something they don’t like or someone like that moron Sally Kohn declaring that Sharia law is totally compatible with liberal "ideals."
Personally, it’s to my way of thinking that from this point on the ONLY thing that’s going to prevent Donald Trump from becoming a successful president is not the negative press that he’s surely going to receive. It will be Donald Trump himself. He made a great many promises throughout the campaign, some of which he already appears to be going soft on. And frankly I’m getting a little concerned. I was a reluctant passenger on the Trump train, but it was my fear of Hitlery as president that encouraged me to step off the platform and get onboard. But I have always had an uneasy feeling when it came to actually trusting him to follow through.
And with Trump also having meetings with such questionable characters as Al Gore, Rahm Emanuel, Bill De Blasio and even Lenny DiCaprio, as well as some of his more recent comments on immigration, I must admit that I’m beginning to question his commitment to follow through on many of the promises he made, especially as they relate to the issues such as ‘illegal immigration’, sanctuary cities and so-called “climate change.” Expectations are very high for Mr. Trump, if for no other reason than because of the many promises he himself has made. We are in a very dangerous place in our history. Hopefully, he can turn this ship around.