I just read an article from McClatchy DC that shows just how deep the bias in the mainstream media goes. Here's the second paragraph of the piece about how the possible indictment of Hillary Clinton will adversely affect her presidential bid:
If she is indicted, she will face further questions about her honesty and perhaps even calls for her to step aside. If she isn’t indicted, as many legal experts predict, critics will accuse the Obama administration of letting her escape charges merely because they want her to win the White House.
Just look at that paragraph. According to McClatchy, the main consequence of an indictment of Hillary is additional questions about her honesty? Are they kidding? That ship sailed a long time ago. Most polls now find that roughly 70% do not think she's honest or trustworthy. But that's the McClatchy focus. Oh, they say that she might face some calls for her to step aside as the nominee. Again, are they kidding? If indicted, Hillary will be accused of violating the Espionage Act which safeguards our national secrets. Conviction under that act carries a penalty of being barred from holding federal office. In other words, if Hillary is convicted she would be unable to serve as president. But McClatchy thinks that the possibly might maybe be some calls for her to step aside. This is either major bias in the reporters worldview or a demonstration of just how little the reporter understands the facts about which she is reporting.
The paragraph goes on, however. When they get to Hillary not being indicted, we are told for the umpteenth time that many experts predict that. Notice that although many experts also predict Hillary will be indicted, there is no mention of that. And who would complain if the Obama administration let her off the hook? Now it would be "critics" rather than "experts". See the difference? "Experts" support Hillary; "critics" are on the other side.
If she is indicted, she will face further questions about her honesty and perhaps even calls for her to step aside. If she isn’t indicted, as many legal experts predict, critics will accuse the Obama administration of letting her escape charges merely because they want her to win the White House.
Just look at that paragraph. According to McClatchy, the main consequence of an indictment of Hillary is additional questions about her honesty? Are they kidding? That ship sailed a long time ago. Most polls now find that roughly 70% do not think she's honest or trustworthy. But that's the McClatchy focus. Oh, they say that she might face some calls for her to step aside as the nominee. Again, are they kidding? If indicted, Hillary will be accused of violating the Espionage Act which safeguards our national secrets. Conviction under that act carries a penalty of being barred from holding federal office. In other words, if Hillary is convicted she would be unable to serve as president. But McClatchy thinks that the possibly might maybe be some calls for her to step aside. This is either major bias in the reporters worldview or a demonstration of just how little the reporter understands the facts about which she is reporting.
The paragraph goes on, however. When they get to Hillary not being indicted, we are told for the umpteenth time that many experts predict that. Notice that although many experts also predict Hillary will be indicted, there is no mention of that. And who would complain if the Obama administration let her off the hook? Now it would be "critics" rather than "experts". See the difference? "Experts" support Hillary; "critics" are on the other side.
No comments:
Post a Comment