Media Failed To Vet Trump Before, During & After His Presidential Announcement
The below NYT reporting (12/26/18) is yet another perfect example how main media failed to properly vet Donald Trump before, during and after he announced for the presidency. This information, and much more, easily could have been and should have been tracked back then.
Trump also got off light when he used a fake veteran organization to promote his speech aboard the USS Iowa just prior to the Iowa Caucus.
Notice the date when this came out! This couldn’t have been investigated before they made a big name out of him as a presidential contender?
Here’s what the media actually did do:
Wikileaks documents exposed Hillary Clinton’s political operatives were meddling with the GOP primary by furthering “pied piper” candidates so she could easily win in the general election. Do you remember early in the campaign when Trump got nearly all of the publicity, Clinton the next most publicity and Ben Carson got an unusual share? This while a media blackout was imposed on Bernie Sanders?
Trump essentially got a free ride from the media on his mob connections, sexual exploitations, military service and overall lack of political qualification. In essence, both the media and the Clinton campaign enabled Trump to bill himself as a political outsider, thus causing him to break from the crowded pack of GOPwinger candidates.
The electorate — Independents, Democrats and Republicans alike — wanted an outsider to win the presidency. Barrack Obama was elected as an outsider, but he governed as an insider. The electorate was hungry for a candidate who would challenge big banking, big oil, big defense, big pharma, etc.
I followed the 2016 presidential campaign daily. I was so into the election I placed #3 out of 220,000 contestants in CNN’s 2016 Political Prediction Market contest. I accomplished this without watching television or listening to NPR on the radio. My bronze medal is a consequence of my deep internet research, coupled with my former political experience having once served as a two-term state representative in New Hampshire.
I knew something wasn’t right with the 2016 election from the beginning, how Clinton was obviously being paginated to win on the Democratic side and it seemed very odd well-established Republican candidates, one by one, kept falling by the wayside not registering well enough in the polls. Remember, going into election day nearly all of the media was portraying Clinton as the inevitable victor over Trump. Perhaps the following helps to explain why:
This reporting by Bill Moyers.com pretty much tells the Bernie Sanders story:
>>>” As the presumed loser from the outset, Sanders didn’t get negative coverage so much as he got negligible coverage. An analysis by the TV News Archive of cable television coverage since January 2015 provides graphs of Clinton’s and Sanders’ mentions that look alike, save for one thing: Clinton was getting vastly more coverage than Sanders. How much more? On CNN, Clinton got more than 70,000 of the Democratic-candidate mentions, while Sanders got just under 42,000. On MSNBC, Clinton got more than 93,000 mentions to Sanders’ roughly 51,000. On Fox News, she got more than 71,000 mentions to his more than 28,000. The numbers are similar on the Lexis-Nexis database of newspapers. In the past 30 days, Clinton received 2,591 mentions, Sanders only 922. By comparison, Trump got 5,568.”<<<
Additional Oddities Concerning the 2016 Presidential Election
https://steemit.com/politics/@michaelweddle/twitter-deleted-48-of-all-posts-with-hashtag-dncleaks
