The Never-Ending Media Bias

The rally by Donald Trump here in Connecticut was yesterday.  It was packed by thousands and people listened outside the event on speakers even though it was one of the hottest and most humid days of the summer.  My local paper, owned by Hearst, covered the event.  I usually ignore the political reports from this paper since it is extremely biased.  Nevertheless, I decided to read the coverage to hear their take on what Trump said.  It was a waste of time.  The article on the rally mentioned essentially none of the substance of what Trump had to say.  Instead, it concentrated on old news, protesters and upcoming Hillary Clinton events.  Why would anyone focus on twenty protesters rather than seven or eight thousand people listening to what the candidate had to say?  Why would an article about Trump's appearance need to tell us about a fundraiser that Hillary Clinton is holding (at over $33,000 per person) in Greenwich in a few days?  Why would a reporter spend time discussing a speaker from the Democrat convention who was not even mentioned at the rally or by those 20 protesters?  The answer is simple:  the reporter could not stand the thought of mentioning anything positive about Trump.  The reporter could not actually report the news; he had to try to "shape the narrative".  It's a classic case of biased journalism.

I get that there's no way to have totally even-handed coverage by the press.  After all, there are people writing these articles, so there biases will slip through.  There is no excuse, however, for coverage which does not even make the attempt at honest reporting.  The reporter in this case should give up his job and try finding a job he might actually be able to do.