When are the MSM going to examine their own consciences and admit they were complicit
in DT's election?
That they deliberately built up his candidacy, giving him far more coverage than any other candidate, because they benefited from the perception -- and eventually, thanks to them, the reality -- of a horserace?
That they let most of his lies go unanswered, over and over and over again? That they treated his lies as differences in opinion and refused -- till after his election -- to call him out on them?
So NOW they're flagging his lies. Now that we're stuck with him. Well, it's too late.
Instead of haranguing Hillary to admit her "failure," why don't they admit their own? They let us down, terribly.
ON EDIT: Peter Daou, Hillary 2008 advisor, has been speaking out on this. And he's right.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/12/report-general-election-coverage-overwhelmingly-negative-in-tone-232307
The coverage of the 2016 general election was marked with overwhelming negativity, leading according to a new report from The Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center, released Wednesday.
The study, which analyzed news reports on the main newscasts from the major cable and broadcast networks along with major daily newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, slammed the press for what it concluded was the "corrosive effect" of mostly negative news throughout the general election.
“Negative news has partisan consequences,” the study's author, Thomas Patterson, wrote. “Given that journalists bash both sides, it might be thought the impact would be neutral. It’s not … If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans. The press historically has helped citizens recognize the difference between the earnest politician and the pretender. Today’s news coverage blurs the distinction.”
SNIP
Both candidates received equally negative coverage on coverage related to the candidates’ fitness for office, including stories about their leadership abilities, ethics, policy positions and personal qualities. Coverage for both candidates on those issues ran at about 87 percent negative to 13 percent positive. The press paid more attention to Clinton’s controversies than to Trump’s, and the tone of that coverage, which made up at least 7 percent of all Clinton coverage every week, was more than 90 percent negative.
https://twitter.com/peterdaou
Peter Daou? Verified account @peterdaou
Peter Daou Retweeted Chris Cillizza
Chris, I challenge you to publicly answer whether you think 600 days of email coverage was proportional to coverage of ANY Trump scandals.
Peter Daou?Verified account
@peterdaou 3h3 hours ago
Despite all his scandals and antics, most mainstream reporters look UP to Trump. Despite all her achievements, they look DOWN on Hillary.
Peter Daou?Verified account @peterdaou
The intellectual dishonesty, delusion or sexism required to deny that Hillary faced EXTRAORDINARY & UNPRECEDENTED obstacles is jaw-dropping.
Peter Daou?Verified account
@peterdaou
"SHE REFUSES TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!" scream the elite media, who refuse to take an ounce of responsibility themselves.
Peter Daou?Verified account @peterdaou
IN AMERICA, when one side is cheated against or has the playing field artificially tilted against them, we don't badger them to take blame.
= new reply since forum marked as read
