For a year or more, the hue and cry of Russian interference, hacking, dabbling, etc. in our election process has continued to be an issue in the mainstream media. It seems this charge goes back to the third presidential debate between Clinton and Trump, during which Clinton claimed that all 17 of the U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Russia has been doing things underhandedly to help Trump.[su_spacer]Not surprisingly, CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, USA Today, Reuters, ABC, and others grabbed on to that and it became one of the rallying flags of the liberal/progressive/Democratic campaign. Two of the main sponsors of the continued claim was Haberman of the NY Times and Stephanopoulos of ABC. Some variation of that theme has continued clear up through last month, even though some entities did issue some language they said would “clarify the issue”. That amounted to some glib spinning on language that stopped short of admitting error, retracting articles, or apologizing to anyone.[su_spacer]
It is also patently clear to anyone that can use Google, or has one iota of common sense, that the claim was never true, nor did the media make any effort to verify that claim. In fact, some said they had run an exhaustive search and found it to be true. As it turns out, some of those intelligence agencies are prohibited by law from investigating any issue on U.S. territory. One deals with only with ballistic missiles and space issues, one was the Coast Guard.[su_spacer]
The truth turned out to be that only three agencies even looked into the claim and none of them found any evidence of Russian interference or that Trump had any involvement with Russia. Even with that to be the proven case, Haberman of the NY Times is still pushing the issue.[su_spacer]
What is the truth? The obvious and uncomfortable truth of the matter is that again we have proof positive that much of the mainstream media is not only biased but downright dishonest. It seems that the media isn’t motivated to change at this time either.[su_spacer]
Two reporters that I’ve read lambasted Trump for not upholding his promise to confront Putin on the subject of hacking when they met. It seems however that neither reporter was at the Trump/Putin meeting, so one has to wonder what their source could be. The one person that I’ve read that was at the meeting said they did discuss the hacking issue and it was a very open and honest discussion. He also said the meeting was in-depth on a number of issues but was very professional and cordial.
I saw a short clip where one leader avoided President Trump’s handshake at the G20. If they showed the complete clip, the woman shook the First Lady’s hand first then she shook the President’s.
Is CNN just giving up trying?
I saw that clip too. It was the wife of one of the leaders and you are right. She acknowledged the first lady first and then Pres. Trump. Perfectly proper. But CNN made it look like she snubbed Trump. Bad form CNN.
There is this “Islamophobia” motion that passed here in Canada. The way it’s worded, you can consider it an Islam blasphemy motion. When a group gathered to protest this motion, a few media took pictures of the group and did some interviews with those that attended.
The media had pictures of protestors doing the “Nazi salute”. One picture was of a lady pointing. Another was of a person raising his hand. Both images were doctored to show the salute.
And the interviews? Wow, all of those that protested were racist white supremacists. No mention that half of the protesters where concerned Muslims that didn’t want the Islamophobia motion to turn into law.
Is this biased reporting? Or just propaganda?
Doesn’t propaganda put forth by the media become biased reporting? Yes, unless it is clearly identified as an editorial comment.
There is spin. Spin is useful. But then there is just plain fiction. When Stalin didn’t like one of his lieutenants and had him killed, all of the pictures of the guy and everything written about him was erased. Even pictures of Stalin with the guy in it were doctored so the guy was gone.
Is clipping out things from video the same as erasing a person from a photo? Is that just bias?
I guess we could call it bias. However, untruth would perhaps be more accurate.
Another example of biased reporting by CNN.