Quote:What's your point have to do with what I was suggesting?  I am responding to a very specific criticism: That the media can't be both for Trump and against him.  My quoting of that information was to show that it is not an indefensible position.  I didn't call Hillary corrupt for having a strategy.  There are far more condemning emails if I wanted to put Hillary on trial.  

 

Even then, I can defend why this, in and of itself, is not ideal for a democracy.  The media should be watchdogs, not kingmakers.  Her camp should never be able to tell the media to take certain candidates seriously.  The media, ideally, would be above taking instructions from a political candidate, and be equally critical of all candidates (in that they apply equal scrutiny... all candidates are not equal in deserving criticism).  This is just not the case in our current political system.  The media will run with a narrative of Trump threatening our democracy, while allowing their own bias to influence their fair reporting.  Even my hardcore lefty friends can agree that there has been an unusually overt slant this election cycle.  

 

before, the left in the media had to hide their bias.  The NYT basically came out with an article giving the media itself permission to abandon objectivity because Trump was deamed to be too dangerous to the globalist order democracy.  24 to one in campaign contributions.  About the same in coverage.  The idea that he hasn't been forced to drop out yet is a small miracle, but it's still October yet.

---