Thursday, February 25, 2016

Equal media treatment for the candidates?

One centerpiece of the Republican message often seems to be that the "liberal media" does not treat them fairly.  When comparing the everyday treatment of Donald Trump to that of Hillary Clinton, one could question that Republican belief.

Watch the town halls and debates.  Clinton is always asked by a moderator, fairly soon into a session, about the e-mail controversy as if it is a possible catastrophe or a threat to her campaign.  It seems that the most important fact, that no one disagrees with, is that none of the e-mails that were received and retained on her main server were highlighted as classified when she received them.  She will patiently wade through the same complete answer, but she can't adamantly say it will not surface.   That is because James Comey, the Obama appointed FBI Director,  who is very proud of himself but is not as bright as he thinks he is, came from a background in the Bush administration, and wrote part of his final college paper seriously discussing Jerry Falwell.  When he recently linked Poland to partial responsibility for the Holocaust, he created a rift with one of our closest allies in Europe. Poland was such a victim of WWII, and his statement was wrong.  He would only apologize in a brief note and when speaking always somehow managed to defend himself.  How can such a supposedly well educated man be so uninformed about history.  It can be noted that as his presidency has gone on, Obama has treated subservience of an appointee as seemingly the prime criteria.

On many issues, Clinton, with her long history in the spotlight, gets the hindsight focus on any decisions.  Libya is a prime example.  At the time, if anyone remembers, the U.S. participation in the Arab spring events there were actually contained.  No troops or advisers went in and the air campaign was with a broad coalition.  Some in Congress wanted a much more aggressive response.

After Trump's run-in with Megyn Kelly in the first debate, moderators seem to be timid in their initial questions to him.  Trump has more baggage than the Olsen twins checking into a hotel.  What about Trump University, the phony college that he set up in 2005 promising to bring riches to those who signed on for the $35,000 or more one year course.  His pitch was that he had designed the program and had chosen all of the "teachers".  In fact he had not done either of those things, it was not an accredited "university", provided no degrees, and has been sued by New York State.  It apparently still exists under another name but since 2011 has been inactive.  The lawsuit continues.  Has one reporter brought this up in a debate or town hall?  What would they do if Hillary or Bill Clinton had been involved in such a fiasco, or scam?

Trump acts as if the bankruptcies of four of his companies over the years is not meaningful.  He notes first that he never went into personal bankruptcy.  He also notes that everything he did was legal and that bankruptcy is just a business tactic.  Is it ethical or anything to aspire to?  Don't loads of people, as in employees, bankers, and investors, get hurt.  He is allowed to get away with the most superficial of answers on this.

This could go on and on...  When Trump is treated with kid gloves and Clinton is given a skeptical reception to many of her thorough responses, is this unfair "liberal media"?  One could suggest so but not in the way the Republican whiners believe.

Is "lame media" really the right term?


Post a Comment

<< Home