General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Experts Conclude That Russian Attack Won The Election For Trump [View all]LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,563 posts)They decided at the beginning that they would write as many negative stories as possible about Gore, and as many positive stories as possible about Bush. It wasn't an accident -- it was a choice. And it worked. They turned a man who was a highly accomplished person with impeccable integrity into a serial liar, and a man whose first 40 years were so badly spent (drink, possibly drugs, maybe an abortion, desertion from his military service) into a neverending paean of praise.
After the election there was a brief period of introspection by the MSM ("holy shit, what did we do?), but in the end they returned to their habit of following the sparkling item, to turn the serious process of choosing our next president into a horse race concerned only with the polls and not the contents of each man's platform. (At least Trump was honest in one thing: he said he would only appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and he's on track to do just that. As someone with a degree in journalism, I was appalled at how Trump's rallies were covered in their entirety, without any real analysis or fact-checking. The Access Hollywood tape alone should have been enough to shoot down Trump's campaign, but the media let it go to pursue the next shiny object.
One good sign is that the press now reports only new stuff Trump says -- like his Orwellian statement to the VFW -- and stopped running live coverage of Trump's events in full.