If a major scandal is revealed, but the mainstream media does not cover it, is it still a scandal? That may not sound like a serious question; after all, how could the media not cover a major scandal. The reality, however, is something quite different. A good example of this phenomenon is the recent revelation that the Clinton Foundation has been accepting millions upon millions of dollars from foreign governments and lobbyists for foreign governments despite the impending run for president by Hillary Clinton. On top of this, there is the added news that even when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation took money from foreign governments that had business with the State Department. This is big stuff, but neither ABC nor NBC have given the story any coverage at all. Someone who got his or her news from one of these networks of the other would have no idea that the Clintons were once again trolling for cash from foreign governments. While CBS did give minimal coverage to the story, it was mostly a mention in passing that got buried in the newscast.
How can this be? When Scott Walker said he would not comment on president Obama's religion, every network covered the story. Why did that non-story merit heavy coverage while potentially criminal conduct by the Clintons is glossed over? In the past, some of the media justify non-coverage by questioning the veracity or political motives of the source. The facts about the Clintons, however, come right from the records of the Clinton Foundation and the report first appeared in the super-liberal Washington Post. In short, even in the mainstream media, there is no reason to question the accuracy of the story. Why is the media not covering it?
The reality is that the news of the potential criminal fund raising actions by the Clinton Foundation is bad for the likely Democrat candidate in 2016. As such, broadcasting the news of these actions might hurt the Dems or help the GOP at the next election. There is no way that much of the mainstream media would ever do that. No matter the reason, the actual conduct of these media outlets should make clear to anyone who previously had a doubt that the mainstream media does not deal in news, but rather in propaganda.
How can this be? When Scott Walker said he would not comment on president Obama's religion, every network covered the story. Why did that non-story merit heavy coverage while potentially criminal conduct by the Clintons is glossed over? In the past, some of the media justify non-coverage by questioning the veracity or political motives of the source. The facts about the Clintons, however, come right from the records of the Clinton Foundation and the report first appeared in the super-liberal Washington Post. In short, even in the mainstream media, there is no reason to question the accuracy of the story. Why is the media not covering it?
The reality is that the news of the potential criminal fund raising actions by the Clinton Foundation is bad for the likely Democrat candidate in 2016. As such, broadcasting the news of these actions might hurt the Dems or help the GOP at the next election. There is no way that much of the mainstream media would ever do that. No matter the reason, the actual conduct of these media outlets should make clear to anyone who previously had a doubt that the mainstream media does not deal in news, but rather in propaganda.
No comments:
Post a Comment