The Media Hypocrisy About Trump

For many years now, the liberal media have lamented that our democracy is badly compromised by a rapacious band of billionaires manipulating government policy and elections and frustrating the will of the people. Just four years ago, the networks became a megaphone for the Occupy Wall Street argument that the "99 percent" were tired of being dominated by the "1 percent."

So when Donald Trump, America's best-known brand name for rapacious billionaire, decided to run for president, one might have expected these Occupier sympathizers would clearly wonder if his entire campaign was a grand conspiracy by the so-called "ruling class."

These supposed opponents of "Big Money" dominating our democracy have spent month after month giving the lion's share of their political coverage to the billionaire reality TV host. Through Feb. 25, Trump's presidential campaign has received 923 minutes of coverage on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts, nearly five times given to Ted Cruz (205 minutes) and seven times the amount of coverage provided to Marco Rubio (139 minutes).

The tone of Trump coverage is routinely negative. But it still plays into Trump's strategy of saying outrageous things to starve the other candidates of any oxygen from the establishment press. The billionaire pledged to self-fund his campaign but has spent little. It's being fueled almost entirely by free TV airtime.

But there's one thing Trump doesn't want covered, and again the networks are complying. In that overflowing tank of news hours, only amount (14 minutes, or 1.5 percent of Trump's total) were spent talking about Trump's past record of support for liberal positions and liberal politicians. Put that number in this perspective: Twice as much time was devoted to Trump's negative comments about Fox News host Megyn Kelly. Almost an hour was dedicated to Trump's proposed (temporary) ban on Muslim immigration.

Until he decided to run for the GOP nomination last year, Trump was no one's idea of a Republican contender, in philosophy, actions or even party label. He called himself a Democrat. He donated large amounts to liberal Democrats, from Sen. Chuck Schumer to the Clintons. He championed Planned Parenthood, tax increases and single-payer socialist health care. He seemed to take all the stomach-churning negatives about Mitt Romney in 2012 -- the elitist background and the past liberal record -- and multiply them exponentially.

But now, surprising everyone from liberal journalists to conservative stalwarts, he's seen as the best bet to clinch the Republican nomination. This is hardly unhappy news to liberals at the moment. The latest CNN poll shows Trump losing to Hillary Clinton by eight points and to Bernie Sanders by 12. Trump's unfavorable numbers hover around 60 percent of the electorate. If that number doesn't improve, he's unelectable, period.

Naturally, the media refuse to accept blame for the current state of the race. NBC political director Chuck Todd wouldn't accept the reality that the media "enabled his rise." He argued instead "the media has also provided all the material that normally a campaign would want to put together an attack against Trump." So blame the other GOP candidates, not the media.

It used to be said that when the GOP field is winnowed from 17 to about six, Trump would no longer dominate. Wrong. On the night before Super Tuesday voting, the networks obsessed over Trump with more than 15 minutes of coverage, compared to just two for Rubio and less than a minute for Cruz.

The accusation should be made. The liberal media want this vulnerable, blabby billionaire with the high unfavorable numbers to be the Republican nominee.

I liked Brent Bozell a lot, but he's sadly mistaken regarding Trump.

What the pundits are not saying is that Trump is literally putting his money where his mouth is; he's running for President himself instead of hiding behind others.

Trump is known for building luxury apartment buildings for the well-off, as well as high-end hotels, resorts, and golf courses. People don't fault Trump for being rich; in fact, many people are fans of the "lifestyles of the rich and famous," and read their magazines and watch their movies and TV shows. Trump is not an enemy of the people.

Let's see who some of these other "rapacious band of billionaires manipulating government policy and elections" are:

The Koch Brothers - The Koch family made their wealth refining crude oil. Koch industries is heavily involved in crude oil transportation, refining, and distributing petroleum products, as well as fertilizers, chemicals, pulp and paper, and plastics. If a Koch chose to step out from behind the curtain, he would instantly be labeled Evil Oil, Polluter, and he blamed for Global Warming.

So the Kochs won't run themselves.

George Soros - Soros built his wealth by undermining the currencies of weak nations. He made $l billion short-selling an over-valued British pound, cost the British treasury £3.4 billion. Soros would later repeat this tactic with Thailand and Malaysian currencies.

Being a natural born Hungarian, accused of breaking the currencies of three nations, and with an insider trading conviction in France, George Soros can't run himself or be publicly associated with a candidate.

Sheldon Adelson - Adelson started out from a poor family and slowly built a series of small businesses that culminated with forming the COMDEX computer trade shows of the 1980s and 1990s. Adelson sold COMDEX, with his share being about $500 million. Adelson then bought the Sands Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, expanding it into a full convention center. He then razed the Sands and replaced it with the Venetian Hotel. Adelson continued to expand his hotel and casino empire internationally.

Adelson probably could run on his own merits (he was born in Massachusetts), but several controversies would likely overshadow his campaign. First is that Adelson was a Democrat who famously said that "I didn't leave the Democrats. They left me." His three main reasons for becoming a Republican were differences in taxation and economic policies, charitable giving trends, and support for Israel. Israel is the second issue. After Joe Lieberman, Adelson would be the only other Jew running for top office. Given the current Middle East tensions, it's hard to say how a staunchly pro-Israel Jewish Republican candidate would stay in control of his message. And finally, Adelson has been accused of union busting at his hotels in Las Vegas, so there is already a built-in hatred from the core Democrat base.

For these reasons, Adelson won't run.

Looking back on these four "rapacious band of billionaires manipulating government policy and elections," is it really fair to single out Trump as some sinister force out to destroy the nation? And then throw Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, and others into the mix, and ask what makes Donald Trump so different?

-PJ

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.