"The Best Mix Of Hard-Hitting REAL News & Cutting-Edge Alternative News On The Web"
"All Original Stories All The Time"
November 12, 2016
Readers Enraged By MSM Election Reporting - 'You Misled Your Readers, Blinded By Journalistic Bigotry'
- Boycott All Mainstream Media And Their Lies In Their Efforts To Initiate The Overthrow Of Our Republic And Their Continuing Provocations In Stirring Up Civil Strife - Let The New Battle Cry For Truth Be "Turn Them Off And Tune Them Out!"
Progressive liberals, George Soros and his merry band of paid protesters, and the mainstream media are certainly giving new meaning to William Shakespeare's "Fight to the last gasp," quote, but what none of them seem to realize yet as they cry, scream, riot and offer their mea culpa's is that the fight is over, the election is finished, their opponents have gone home to celebrate and they are doing nothing but flailing in the wind while grunting incoherently.
While anyone can see the headlines about the third day of protests and riots, and how those that are incapable of understanding quite how elections work and are holding out for a pipe-dream that maybe they can make electors of the electoral college change their vote, what many are missing is how the mainstream media is attempting to suck more air out oxygen tanks that have gone empty.... and they have no one to blame but themselves.
THE ULTIMATE LOSERS IN THE 2016 ELECTION - THE MSM
For the last year and a half we have witnessed and reported on the mainstream media's unrelenting and unapologetic campaign against Donald Trump, where 91 percent of the reporting since the party's convention, where he was named the GOP nominee, has been studied and found to have been negative, but even before that they treated Trump as if he didn't stand a chance to win that nomination.
We have noted and reported via Wikileaks releases how that very same MSM had colluded with the DNC and the Clinton campaign in order to influence the public to elect Hillary Clinton.
We have also observed and reported how Trump supporters were constantly labeled and portrayed as racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, uneducated, uninformed, white nationalist deplorables, just to name a few of the colorful descriptors.
How did that work out for them?
Despite their biased reporting and throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at Trump, we now have President-Elect Donald Trump headed for the White House, to be sworn in on January 20, 2017.
While Hillary Clinton will fade into obscurity and the protesters will eventually go home just to criticize everything Trump does for the next four (maybe 8?) years, and progressives will get over their sworn "revolution" within the party between liberals and moderate Democrats, the ultimate losers are not Clinton supporters, celebrities that swore to leave the country if Trump won, nor Democrats as a party.... it is the mainstream media that was rendered irrelevant, crushed by a wave of "deplorables" and alternative media bypassing their once-influential status to communicate without their fasle prism of 'truth.'
MSM'S LAST GASP
Now they are offering their mea culpas, dedicating countless hours and ink to explaining and justifying how they were so wrong in their predictions that they knew ahead of time were based on a false premise, and taking their "last gasp" by swearing to "rededicate" themselves to reporting honestly, while at the same time claiming they reported on "both candidates fairly."
I kid you not.
Below is a letter by Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and Dean Baquet, the publisher and editor of the New York Times:
First point is that if they had been reporting "fairly" as claimed in the letter above, they would not need to "rededicate" themselves to honesty. Secondly, they did not strive "to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences," of Trump supporters, rather they maligned, criticized, belittled and mocked anybody that did not agree with their superior and smug political opinion.
While it is to be expected that Trump supporters, verbally abused on a regular basis will not forget nor forgive media outlets such as the Times, the Public Editor Liz Spayd, who works independently, with the job of examining The Times with an eye to protecting journalistic integrity and good practices, describes the reaction from other members of the public to their reporting.
Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: "Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think."
Another letter, from Nick Crawford of Plymouth, Mich., made a similar point. "Perhaps the election result would not be such a surprise if your reporting had acknowledged what ordinary Americans care about, rather than pushing the limited agenda of your editors," he wrote. "Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us."
What Ms. Spayd does not acknowledge is that their reporting will not and cannot change as long as their publisher and editor, the ones that wrote the letter in the image above, continue to insist their reporting during the campaign season was in any way fair, or to even pretend they attempted to "understand and reflect all political perspectives." What Ms. Spayd also does not address is the fact that five different New York Times' reporters accepted the invitations for the off-the-record gatherings to "frame the HRC message" with the Clinton campaign staff before her campaign launched, including, Gail Collins, Jonathan Martin, Maggie Haberman, Patrick Healy, and Amy Chozick, all of which consistently penned hit pieces against Trump.
It is heartening to see that outlets like the New York Times are being called to the carpet by their own readers, as well as admitting they are losing subscribers, because while Trump supporters were maligned and lied about, their readers were misinformed and lied to.
The country’s major news organizations, as surprised as anybody by Donald J. Trump’s ascension to the presidency, faced a question from their audiences on Wednesday that was laced with a sense of betrayal and anger: How did you get it so wrong?
The question came in letters. ("To editors and writers of The NYT," one reader wrote, "you were so wrong for so long. You misled your readers and were blinded by your own journalistic bigotry.") It came in Facebook posts. ("You were in a bubble and weren’t paying attention to your fellow Americans," the filmmaker Michael Moore wrote in a post shared more than 100,000 times.) Most ominously, it came in the form of canceled subscriptions, something that will surely be monitored.
Using an outside law firm or even in-house reporters, he must assess how and why Baquet made the decision to sever the paper from its roots. He must assess the impact on reporters and editors, and whether they felt pressure to conform their stories to Baquet’s political bias.
Whatever the findings, the publisher must insist that the standards of fairness again become a fundamental tenet in the news room. As an added guarantee, he must insist that the paper enlarge its thinking about diversity to include journalists who disagree with the Times embedded liberal slant. There has to be a difference of perspective to judge where fairness lies.
Readers, and former readers, should be part of the process. Many already know that the paper must get its head out of parochial New York and into the hearts and minds of Americans everywhere.
This is about survival. If it doesn’t change now, the Gray Lady’s days surely are numbered.
Frankly I believe traditional media's days are numbered whatever they do, and they are on their last gasp. There are too many Independent journalists and alternative news sites from both sides of the political aisle that are rendering them irrelevant.
While alternative media has its own set of biases, the majority always provide links, documents when available, video clips and other methods for readers to verify, research and come to their own conclusions, something mainstream media doesn't want readers to do because they feel they have the right to lead the public where the MSM wants them to go, rather than inform the public and trust them to make their own determinations.