Now that both the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention are over, and both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have accepted the presidential nominations for their respective parties, the game is on and the mainstream media is already offering dire warnings such as "Be afraid - This will be one of the ugliest, most divisive elections in American history."
On one side we have Donald Trump and his ardent supporters, along with reluctant Republicans that finally are starting to realize that it is Trump or America will end up with Hillary Clinton as President.
On the other side we have Hillary Clinton, the mainstream media, the Obama administration using the White House as a bully pulpit to fight against a Trump presidency, the political class and the establishment elite.
Normally one would think with the odds stacked against Trump and conservatives, it would be game over instead of game on, but those that watched the mainstream media declare Trump dead in the water almost weekly over the last year just see him prevail over 16 other Republican primary candidates, understand that the battle has just begun.
MEDIA IN CLINTON'S POCKET
Proof of media favoritism of Clinton comes as we note that network coverage of the convention gave the Democratic convention 40 percent more airtime during prime time, as shown in the graph the GOP put together, explained in the following manner:
As the Democrats’ final night gets underway, we can see quite clearly that each network have given anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes extra per night of primetime coverage to the DNC. And this isn’t just due to long speeches alone. All three networks cut away before 11 PM on Monday night of the RNC’s convention when Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), a rising star in our party, had yet to speak.
Based on our analysis, the networks from nights 1 thru 3, gave the DNC 13 hours and 21 minutes of coverage, while giving the RNC 9 hours and 47 minutes during the same nights. Democrats have been given nearly 40 percent more time during prime time to get their message out.
The mainstream media also neglected to report, or show, the number of delegates that walked out during Hillary Clinton's acceptance speech, and in fact, one of the few MSM articles we found on the topic , published after the convention was over, claimed "Bernie Sanders delagates 'abandoned' plans to walk out of Hillary Clinton's speech, which is a proven lie as Breitbart News actually spoke with one of those delegates that did, indeed, walk out.
The mainstream media also neglects to show what was noted by leftists filmaker Josh Fox, known for his Oscar-nominated anti-fracking documentary Gasland, who uploaded a video with the message "Omg" expressing his shock at how many empty seats could be seen at the Democratic convention for Hillary's "coronation" speech.
Then we have the hysterical media reaction to Donald Trump "hijacking" the Democratic convention, when he said "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," which generated MSM headlines such as the Chicago Tribune claiming Trump "urges Russia to hack Clinton's emails," and Washington Post declaring "Trump invites Russia to meddle in the U.S. presidential race with Clinton’s emails," and on and on they went, giving more ink to Trump than to the Democratic convention..... which by the way, was the whole purpose of Trump's remarks to begin with.
Interestingly enough we are going to quote a man that is not a Trump supporter, in fact is completely anti-Trump, and calls the media coverage over Trump's comments "unmitigated bullsh*t," as Slate's Isaac Chotiner interviews Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, and asks "What did you think of Trump’s press conference? You’ve gone after people who you thought were smearing those denying a Trump-Russia connection, and you’ve used the word McCarthyite to describe them. But now Trump has encouraged the Russians to find or release more Hillary Clinton emails."
Greenwald's response:
OK, so, I am glad you asked about that because this is the conflict that I am currently having: The U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president. I don’t have an actual problem with that because I share the premises on which it is based about why he poses such extreme dangers. But that doesn’t mean that as a journalist, or even just as a citizen, that I am willing to go along with any claim, no matter how fact-free, no matter how irrational, no matter how dangerous it could be, in order to bring Trump down.
So, literally, the lead story in the New York Times today suggests, and other people have similarly suggested it, that Trump was literally putting in a request to Putin for the Russians to cyberattack the FBI, the United States government, or get Hillary Clinton’s emails. That is such unmitigated bullshi*t. What that was was an offhanded, trolling comment designed to make some kind of snide reference to the need to find Hillary’s emails. He wasn’t directing the Russians, in some genuine, literal way, to go on some cybermission to find Hillary’s emails. If he wanted to request the Russians to do that, why would he do it in some offhanded way in a press conference? It was a stupid, reckless comment that he made elevated into treason.
As noted by Bill Still, first Trump couldn't be suggesting Russia hack into Clinton's email server for those missing 30,000 emails because "Hillary’s illegal servers no longer exist as working servers. They have been removed from Hillary’s basement and disassembled, the disks removed for deep forensic analysis in FBI Headquarters. So Trump can’t encourage hacking something that does not exist!"
The pièce de résistance is offered by Still as "Fact Three," which is that according the "Treaty with Russia on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters," signed on Dec. 30, 1999, by none other than William (Bill) J. Clinton, if Russia is in possessions of any of Clinton's deleted emails, they are obligated by treaty to turn them over.
It isn't only the mainstream media though that appears to be attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election as NBC 4 reports that Google search results for the term "presidential candidates" was only bringing up Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, with no image or acknowledment of Donald Trump or Gary Johnson, until Google was called out for it, then they included Johnson and Trump back into the results claiming it was a "technical glitch."
What the mainstream media aka hell stream media simply hasn't even begun to understand is that they are not as influencial as they once were when they held a monopoly on news, there are Independent journalists and alternative media, blogs, social media and a variety of other ways to spread a message online and have it filter through to the dinner tables across America.
In fact, dismal numbers in poll after poll showing that the majority of Americans simply do not trust the mainstream media anymore, if they claim the sky is blue, some would actually go outside to check for themselves... just in case.
Donald Trump has used the media against itself since the day he announced his candidacy, using them for free coverage by making outrageous statements, knowing it will garner him unprecedented amounts of headlines, and using those headlines to connect with those that distrust the government, the system, the political process, crooked politicians, and those sick and tired of the media trying to tell them what to do.
Perhaps the most ironic of all is that if Donald Trump wins the 2016 presidential election, it won't only be because of alternative media and Independent journalism, it won't only be because in the age of the Internet we all have the ability to garner traffic to pro-Trump videos, and social media accounts, it won't only be because the harder the "establishment" and the "elite" push against him the more people gravitate toward him.... it will be because Donald Trump has used the media against itself.
Below is Breitbart News' attempt to help counter the MSM's pro-Hillary coverage with "Clinton Cash," - A feature documentary based on the Peter Schweizer book that the New York Times hailed as “"The most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle."
