If you, like me, thought the mainstream media spectacle on election night, with pundits crying and lashing out at American voters, couldn't get any worse.... you and I, were wrong.
By all accounts, had the general public trusted the mainstream media, whether it is newspapers or television news, that consistently provided negative coverage of Donald Trump during the primaries, followed by 91 percent of their coverage being "hostile" to Trump during the general campaign season, Trump would have lost the presidential election and Hillary Clinton would have been inaugurated on January 20, 2017.
BY THE NUMBERS
Gallup polling from June 2016, compared to the numbers in September show that in a three month period, amidst the MSM's blatant campaign against Trump, while promoting Clinton, trust in the MSM dropped by 9 percentage points.
In a confidence in institutions poll from June 1-5, 2016, only 8 percent of Americans were recorded as having a "great deal" of trust in television news, with 13 percent registering "quite a lot" of trust, and newspapers did even worse, with only 8 percent of the public having a "great deal" of trust and only 12 percent saying "quite a lot." So between the two, that was 41 percent of the public that still had some trust in the MSM.
By September 2016, Gallup reported that trust in mass media had fallen to new lows, with only 32 percent of Americans saying they had a "great deal/fair amount" of trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly."
Days before the election, a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, found that Americans thought the media wanted Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to win by an almost 10-to-1 margin, because they weren't even pretending to be objective anymore with the election just days away and their candidate flailing.
7 in 10 (69%) voters do not believe the news media are honest and truthful; 8 in 10 (78%) of voters believe the news coverage of the presidential campaign was biased, with nearly a 3-to-1 majority believing the media were for Clinton (59%) vs. for Trump (21%); Even 1/3 (32%) of Clinton voters believe the media were "pro-Clinton" ; 8% of Trump voters said they would have voted for Clinton if they had believed what the media were saying about Trump; 97% of voters said they did not let the media’s bias influence their vote.
THE MSM PROPAGANDA VERSUS TRUTH MOVEMENT KICKS INTO HIGH GEAR
The MSM only got worse after the election, encouraging divisions by offering their loyal core audience of liberals that still believed them despite their misleading them with outright "fake news" and skewed polling during the campaign cycle, hope that recounts would change the results, or that electors would become faithless, just to see those false hopes come crashing down around their loyal audiences' heads, time and time again.
Now before detailing the utterly humiliating spectacle the MSM are making of themselves regarding the inauguration of President Trump on Friday, for those that did not see the compilation, just a quick reminder of the MSM reactions after the election, after they failed to influence the public into voting for the candidate they wanted to win.
With 97 percent of Americans saying they did not allow the media bias to influence their choice of who to vote for, one would think the media would look within, understand where they went wrong, regroup and attempt to establish trust with Americans, but the reactions already being seen to Trump's inauguration, shows anyone that thought that, were wrong.
We'll start with CNN since they have really kicked their war against the President into high gear after Trump called them out publicly as being "Fake News."
They offered a round-up of their CNN analysts' opinions on the 45th president's inauguration, starting with Lanhee Chen, who says Trump's message is "I won't change."
Then we have CNN's Roxanne Jones, who claims she wants to see President Trump to make her proud, but "on this rainy winter day, somehow it seemed ominous that instead of looking toward America's bright future with optimism, nearly every speaker focused on how we were witnessing "a peaceful transition of power," as if this is the best thing we can offer the world on this day."
Ruth Ben-Ghiat states "Trump's authoritarianism was showing today," and going on to write "January 20, 2017 marks the start of a New Era, one unburdened by memories of the past. In fact, less than half hour after he was sworn in, the US Government webpages on climate change and LGBT Workplace Rights Advancement Report disappeared. It's a clue as to what to expect from Trump's administration: an assault on the causes and movements that don't conform to Trump's ethno-nationalist vision of what's good for our country."
Michael Nutter starts his screed by saying he is "sad and fearful today," before bemoaning the loss of Obama, and stating "there is virtually no indication that the incoming President is actually ready to lead, to inspire, to empathize, to focus, to mature, to change, to act responsibly and to truly understand the power, duty and responsibility of his new position."
Raul Reyes says Trump's speech was "dark, pessimistic, and at times ultranationalistic."
CNN's Jake Tapper actually called Trump's inaugural speech "One of the most radical inaugural speeches we've ever heard," which CNN's Brian Stelter, thought was such a great quote he tweeted out to his followers.
Jeff Yang called Trump's inauguration speech "raw-meat ferocity and garrulous showmanship," before comparing it to Obama's farewell address, calling that a "call not to arms but to engagement and empathy; a vision of quiet strength, not preening brawn; of optimism based on innovation and partnership, not economic conquest and military might."
Let us not forget MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, that calls Trump's inaugural speech "Militant" and "Dark." That was followed up by NBC's Chuck Todd calling the speech "shockingly divisive," and Hallie Jackson saying Trump lobbed "verbal grenades."
Back to CNN, there were a few analysts, those that rarely are highlighted on the network, that said Trump was a "A restoration of popular will," and called his speech a "An inspirational message of unity."
Moving along to the Washington Post, another MSM source that completely threw "journalism" out the window during the election season, and after the election, proving they have no intention of even attempting to provide any objectivity.
Here a few headlines from yesterday and today, "A most dreadful inaugural address." - "Donald Trump completes hostile takeover of Washington, puts both parties on notice." - "Trump signs executive order that could effectively gut Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate." - "Donald Trump is our president. Let us pray." (Note to the writer of that last one, Kathleen Parker - Trump supporters have been praying, which is why Donald Trump is out 45th President) Under their most read section, we see the headline "Donald Trump's inauguration was a Gothic nightmare." Another one states "Trump’s inaugural address was a radical break with American tradition."
Then we have the most egregious, which states "President Trump’s ‘America First’ slogan was popularized by Nazi sympathizers."
Of course we can't ignore Washington Post's attacks on Melania, where they take issue with her White House website bio because it shows her jewelry line and modeling career as part of her accomplishments, to which Power Line asks "Is this garbage the kind of story the Washington Post will try to pass off as scandalous during the next four to eight years?"
Then they make the following point:
What’s shocking is that the Washington Post would try to invent an ethical issue over this. If the Post and other mainstream outlets keep this up, the public (excluding the hard core anti-Trump left) may be unwilling to pay attention to reporting on real Trump scandals, if they occur. That would be unfortunate.
Bingo!
We have just used a small sample, but they are representative of how the MSM has learned nothing from their mistakes, which has cost them all trust by thinking individuals and has made their actual "influence," almost disappear entirely.
BOTTOM LINE
The MSM propaganda versus the Truth Movement has kicked into high gear ladies and gentlemen, because the MSM is in for the fight of its life, to remain relevant, but rather than attempt to become relevant once again to those that already distrust them, they are focusing on keeping their dwindling base happy
Below is an example of those that still trust the MSM.
