Taking on Corporate Media’s Well Paid Hillary-Bashers

[synergie]

I am regularly asked why Andrea Mitchell still has a job at NBC. The complaint is: “She’s so biased against Hillary Clinton, she may as well be campaigning against her. It’s all sneer, smear and innuendo.” True. But the medium is the message. TV networks pay many millions of dollars per year to pundits, dressing them in tony outfits to sit behind imposing desks in an effort to convince that their opinion has more value than yours. Why does Andrea Mitchell still have a job? Because NBC likes the rubbish she’s pushing. Look at Matt Lauer, who just shamed himself with his sexist, rude, interrupting treatment of Secretary Clinton at NBC’s recent CiC Forum. What was the reason for his conduct?

Follow the money.

Ms. Mitchell, Chuck Todd, Lauer and their media brothers and sisters are following the money (and orders) given them by their corporate masters. If network owners didn’t want to cynically focus on the nothingburger click-bait of Hillary’s emails 24/7/365, if they didn’t want to daily, and bizarrely, bash the A-rated Clinton Foundation, an organization that has saved millions of lives, they would stop. Nothing is accidental here.

Local media, on the other hand, has been far better, actually discussing Clinton’s policies. But they get a lot less play.

Alex Castellanos is a commentator on CNN. In 2008, he referred to then-Senator Clinton as a “white bitch.” Last week, on NBC’s Meet the Press, Castellanos ignored her qualifications and referred to her as “Nana Clinton” – framing her as a drab grandmother who’s candidacy excites no one. Clinton has been voted America’s most admired woman a staggering 20 times. In both the 2008 and 2016 primaries, she won more votes than anyone. Hillary Clinton, former First Lady, two-term Senator and popular Secretary of State did this despite constant media bashing and the most misogynistic, disrespectful coverage on record. Clearly, someone is excited to vote for her despite efforts to kneecap her.

Further, Castellanos made the vile comment that there is an “otherness” to President Obama by way of excusing Donald Trump’s vile 5-year “birther” conspiracy. Is anyone naïve enough to believe network bookers put operatives like Castellanos on the air only to be blindsided by their rhetoric?

The New York Times has been a notorious culprit this election cycle, all but ruining their reputation with false or at the least, faulty, stories on Hillary Clinton. My letter to the NYT Public Editor lays out their many sins. Even decent features have a negative taint much of the time. Read NYT reporters Maggie Haberman, Amy Chozick or Patrick Healy. What do they have in common? The same set of negative frames and narratives sprinkled throughout the paragraphs of every article they write about her, whether the “adjectives” used to describe her have anything to do with the particular topic being covered or not. Why?

To keep the brainwashing going.

If I write the word “untrustworthy” about someone in every article over a period of years, whether or not it’s true, after seeing it enough times, that word becomes an automatic association with that subject. (Pulitzer prize winning Politifact has deemed Hillary Clinton to be the most honest of any candidate in either party this entire election cycle.)

Networks and major print publications can hire anyone they want. Ms. Haberman offered up the same subtle negativity about Clinton when she worked for Politico, so when she got hired by The New York Times to cover Clinton in the 2016 election, don’t you think they knew what they were getting – and wanted it that way?

A 2016 Harvard study has proven that Hillary Clinton has gotten more negative coverage by far than any candidate of either party. Is it an accident that she also happens to be the most qualified, accomplished candidate with a strong progressive platform? It’s gotten so bad that NYT columnist, the Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, wrote an article bashing his own paper.

So why are they thrashing her, especially if there is supposedly a liberal bias in the media?

Follow the money.

Hillary Clinton is often derided as being the “tool of corporations.” If that were true, then the corporate-owned media would not work so hard to defeat her.

As noted previously, she has been smeared by Republicans for 25 years (with much of the press corps acting as eager stenographers). She’s been dragged before countless committees with millions of dollars spent in the effort. No wrongdoing was ever found. So either she’s very smart, they’re very stupid or this is political hogwash/click-bait to obstruct a woman working to get something done on behalf of the American people.

Look at her record.

You be the judge.

There is much more at the link http://www.anitafinlay.com/corporate-medias-well-paid-hillary-bashers/

[Gabi Hayes]

1. most excellent summation of the Fools/Tools for Scandal who debase the political dialogue.

Look what they did to Gore and Kerry, and tried/still try to do to center-right Obama.

of course it's all about the Benjamin's.

read Robert mcchesney's Rich Media, Poor Democracy, which details the demise of public journalism, morphing into the monolithic, fascist instrument of control (Edward bernays, anyone?)
that it's become. he makes the point that, without economic democracy, there can be NO political democracy. the current system of utter concentration of capital bodes ill for the future of what atavistic appendages of our constitutional body politic remain. he maintains that, in particular, such concentration of media is the most pernicious element in the loss of Liberty.

we are so screwed

[world wide wally]

2. Well stated.

Now how do we force feed the people delivering their message?