3 Examples of the Media Double Standard With Trump and Clinton
U.S. News & World Report
Peter Roff 1 day ago
According to some estimates, more than 20,000 people turned out Tuesday to hear Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in critical Loudon County, Virginia. To borrow a Trumpism, that's huge but, thanks to the mainstream press, what you'll hear about the event will likely be how Trump booted a crying baby from it.
We should be used to the distortions by now, but it's a plain fact that most of the people covering the campaign are unwilling to give him a fair shake yet will bend over backwards to put the best face on anything former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says or does.
The "baby booting" story, judged newsworthy by
Politico, reads as though Trump is a heartless monster. Here's what he said: "Don't worry about that baby. I love babies. ... Don't worry about it. I love babies. I hear that baby crying, I like it. What a baby. What a beautiful baby. Don't worry, don't worry. The mom's running around like – don't worry about it, you know. It's young and beautiful and healthy and that's what we want."
As a member of the media, I may be confused but it sounds to me like a marvelous thing to say, especially in light of what was probably the parent's embarrassment at how her child was disrupting his remarks. As it continued, Trump again addressed the child and her mother by saying, "Actually, I was only kidding, you can get the baby out of here."
Anyone listening can tell the latter comment was meant as a joke. It won't be reported that way because that doesn't fit in with the narrative the Washington Post, CNN, the New York Times and the unabashedly liberal political zines have created. It's only by hearing or seeing the event that you'll come to understand the truth of what went on.
This is but one distortion; there are plenty more. Following the lead of the Democrats, the media are demanding Trump apologize to Khizr and Ghazala Khan, parents of a dead American soldier who spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Now, I'm not on any of the relevant email lists but I'm not exactly sure what it is he is supposed to apologize for. The Khans should have known they were being drawn into a political forum (one from which they now say they want to escape because they apparently don't like all the attention) and were opening themselves up to criticism – especially in the pointed nature of what Mr. Khan said in his speech. Trump certainly didn't attack them for being Muslim which, it almost goes without saying, would be wrong.
If the Khans occupy a rarified status because they lost a son in combat then how does one explain the treatment given
Pat Smith and
Charles Woods, parents who lost their sons in the massacre at Benghazi and who both claim Clinton lied to them, face to face? They are being excoriated for stepping into the political arena on Trump's behalf but, unlike
the Khans, are not backing down under pressure.
One set of rules for Hillary Clinton and a different set of rules for everyone else is not only the way she lives her life but the way the media is covering this election. The latest wrinkle is the emerging demands
Ivanka Trump say something on the record about the way her father treats women and sexual harassment in the workplace. This may be a salient point (not really) but some of the same reporters who want a statement from her on these matters have assiduously avoided posing similar question to Chelsea Clinton, a woman whose father (why do we have to remind people of this?) had an illicit sexual relationship with a workplace subordinate young enough to be his own daughter and then lied about it to the American people after he was caught. If the shoe were on the other foot I know reporters (and you know them too) who would fall all over themselves queuing up to ask Ivanka what she thought about the allegation her father was a rapist.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...le-standard-with-trump-and-clinton/ar-BBvat9f