[mandaladon]

The MSM continues to battle Trump...but in the end he will prevail!!!

[Billthedrill]

I don't really think that Fox's chief navel-gazer is looking in the right direction. If there actually is a case for different treatment between the candidates it comes down on Hillary, not on Trump - it is she, after all, who drove a murderous and destructive Middle East policy that continues to stack up the bodies, who openly (as her husband just verified) sold access to her office to all comers, who compromised significant amounts of classified State Department data, who has systematically stonewalled, intimidated, and interfered with every attempt to investigate all of these - this is more than enough justification for a tougher treatment of her candidacy than anything in Trump's past, which in any case is not subject to public accountability. Here's an example:

I pressed him last week on the lack of any public record for his contention that he opposed the Iraq invasion.

What public record does Kurtz, who knows better, expect a private citizen to register his or her opinions in for subsequent verification a decade and a half later? Free Republic? Of course there is disparate treatment here; at the time Hillary had spent eight years in active involvement in national policy as - her phrase - "co-President". Trump had been constructing buildings. Kurtz is free to check the cornerstones for incriminating carvings but beyond that, what does expect to find and where does he expect to find it?

The real difficulty in the attitude that the media are obligated to judge one candidate a monster worthy of asymmetrical treatment is that they are also obligated to recognize it and make a case for it, which such fools as E. J. Dionne have signally failed to do. "Of course Trump's a monster, everybody says so" is an admission of groupthink, not of journalism. And complaining about his income tax returns when his opponent's IRS is running an audit on them is a sign of pure hypocrisy, not of investigative reporting.

There is, too, the simple contradiction between the viewpoints "we've really been biased against Hillary" and "sure, we've been biased against Trump but we should be." You can't have it both ways. And when we see the outrage of CNN editing inflammatory words into Trump's speech text that were never there, it's fairly clear that no level playing field was intended and that no accountability of the tilt is going to be made. In short, the media are taking heat for being biased because they are biased, for lying because they lie, for misrepresentation because they misrepresent. It isn't simply a matter of infinitely malleable partisan perception.

[FlipWilson]

So easy to understand. To liberals, their views, their beliefs are what is. They don’t or shouldn’t have to defend or tolerate that which is not.

Hillary is what is and Donald isn’t. There should be NO reality other than that. Thus, to a lib even ONE story that doesn’t crush Trump is seen as an outrage. ONE story that portrays Hillary as anything other than what is,
is a break in reality that is of astronomical proportions. Oh the bias!!

[timestax]

[Personal Responsibility]

“...decrying what they see as a press corps that coddles Trump and castigates Hillary Clinton...”

This is defined as “Of every 100 things said about Trump, one is good. Of every 100 things said about Clinton, one is bad”

[upchuck]

I think God is watching over Mr. Trump.

[exDemMom]

Does anyone in the media have the slightest clue that it is because of overt and blatant bias like this that they keep losing credibility?

They are supposed to report—nothing more. It is not their job to try to impose a certain style of thinking on us.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Damn voters just won’t do what they’re told.