Posted on 10/16/2016 2:31:30 PM PDT by Kaslin
Following the recent reporting from major news sources about Donald Trump’s alleged sexual assaults against numerous women, he has railed against the media for colluding with Hillary Clinton campaign. In spite of Media Research Center data which shows how lopsided recent coverage of the candidates had been, CNN’s Brian Stelter denied any such effort by the media to sway the election on Reliable Sources Sunday. “This is not just false, it's ludicrous and it's damaging,” he complained.
“In Trump's world, journalists are really just Clinton campaign workers in disguise collaborating with her in an attempt to rig the election,” he said before questioning, “How do we prove that we are not all conspiring?”
The Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan didn’t know how they could convince people and described beliefs of a colluding media as “absurd.” “Nobody is sitting in a room with each other and planning to, you know, do anything evil to a candidate. It's just not the case,” she explained. She even went so far as to say that there was no such thing as “the media,” arguing:
I mean, there are media outlets, there are newspapers, there are cable TV stations, there are network news, but there is no, sort of, little group called “the media” that gets together and decides to do terrible things to Donald Trump. How do you prove that? It's a reality check.
The strawman argument presented by Sullivan is just about as absurd as she believes Trump’s is about the media. The media doesn’t need to meet like a cabal to push an agenda. There are members of the media who admit that the industry is dominated by liberals. And the fact that most of them see the world through a similar prism means their coverage is colored how they perceive it.
CNN's Stelter: It’s ‘False’ and ‘Ludicrous’ that the Media Colluded with Clinton Campaign
Later on in the program, Stelter brought on The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald to discuss the WikiLeaks scandal and the flood of Clinton Campaign e-mails coming from it. Eventually, a skeptical sounding Stelter brought up a select set of e-mails that allegedly show members of the media cozying up to the Clinton campaign. He seemed to suggest that Fox News and others were making something out nothing, saying to Greenwald, “I’ve gotten the sense that they believe there are bombshells.”
Greenwald seemed to pop Stelters bubble by confirming the seriousness of some the e-mails. “Some of them are just normal standard back and forth jockeying between campaigns and journalists. Others though I think are examples of serious impropriety,” he said. He even described Donna Brazile’s passing on of a town hall question to Clinton and not Sanders as “journalistically unethical.”
The CNN host has chalked up his own list of arguable improprieties this election cycle. He didn’t bat an eye when Univision’s Jorge Ramos argued for journalist to toss objectivity out the window. Before the first presidential debate he demanded that Trump receive harsher treatment than Clinton from the moderator. He even attacked Associated Press reporters for exposing connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department. Obviously, Stelter’s claim that the liberal media does not aid the Clinton campaign is also “ludicrous,” or maybe he’s trying to land a spot in Clinton’s next media party.
CNN
Reliable Sources
October 16, 2016
11:14:46 AM Eastern
BRIAN STELTER: [Sigh] Corrupt media. In Trump's world, journalists are really just Clinton campaign workers in disguise collaborating with her in an attempt to rig the election. This is not just false, it's ludicrous and it's damaging. But you know what, his current conspiracy theory is ripped from these pages, the pages of the right wing website of Breitbart News. It says right there, the press is colluding to elect Hillary. That might popup in your Facebook feed, you might share it with friends, and it starts to become believed. You know, these are strange, strange times. Trump even cancelled on his friend Sean Hannity this week. He’s giving no interviews, and by the way neither is Hillary Clinton, as Clinton prepared for Wednesday’s debate.
So, what are the consequences of this conspiratorial talk? Joining me now, David Frum a senior editor at The Atlantic and former speech writer for President George W. Bush. And Margaret media columnist with the Washington Post.
Margaret, what do we even say? How do we prove that we are not all conspiring?
MARGARET SULLIVAN: Brian, I'm not sure how you prove it. It's an absurd claim. I mean, I've spent decades in the newspaper business. I've worked at The New York Times and the Washington Post. Nobody is sitting in a room with each other and planning to, you know, do anything evil to a candidate. It's just not the case. And I also think that this idea that there's something called “the media,” my colleague at the Washington Post, Paul Farry, wrote a piece about how there is really no such thing.
I mean, there are media outlets, there are newspapers, there are cable TV stations, there are network news, but there is no, sort of, little group called “the media” that gets together and decides to do terrible things to Donald Trump. How do you prove that? It's a reality check.
STELTER: Especially now that we’re all media makers. Now that we’re all snapchatting and Facebooking we’re all making media. And I would say, the traditional media, we are competitive we are market driven. I compete with you Margaret. I want to beat you to stories. That’s the kind of thing that discourages what Trump would call “collusion” in the media.
11:27:48 AM Eastern
STELTER: Watching Fox News coverage of this leak this week, this stolen trove this week. I’ve gotten the sense that they believe there are bombshells. Let me put on screen a few examples of what Sean Hannity said really stood out to him. Examples of media collusion between the Clinton campaign and journalists. “CNBC’s John Harwood offering advice to the Clinton campaign. The New York Times allowing edits to quotes of Clinton. The Boston globe pumping up the campaign. Univision pressured to attack Trump. Campaign bragged about media support. And Donna Brazile receiving a leaked town hall question.” Are these isolated examples, Glenn of journalistic improprieties or are they evidence of collusion?
GLENN GREENWALD: I think they’re examples—at least some of them-- Some of them are just normal standard back and forth jockeying between campaigns and journalists. Others though I think are examples of serious impropriety. I think Donna Brazil leaking—getting a hold of a town hall question and only giving it to the Clinton campaign and not the Sanders campaign is an example of cheating. It’s journalistically unethical—[Cut off by Stelter to look at an article he wrote about it on CNN.com.]
…
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
I have a two-word response: Wiki. Leaks. Case closed.
Journo-List
POS LIAR.....they been caught many times azzhole
JournoList
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList
Dog whistling past the economic dustbin of history graveyard.
Hey Stelter, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
Laughing and laughing - especially at the way he had no answers for the specific examples, or just one of them.
I am starting to think that roughly half of this country are either very poorly educated or lie as much as Hillary does.
When are we going to Drug test people that profit off of speech?
Right?! Does anyone remember the group of media that got together, but was later busted up during Obama’s camaign?
Where is Baghdad Bob staying in front of US tanks saying it is ludicrous to believe there are US tanks in Baghdad. Same thing as here. The evidence is crystal clear and they stand in front of the audience and deny it exists.
It's been proven hundreds of times.
Yes! You answered my question. I was trying to remember the name. Thank you!
`Who you gonna believe? Us or your lyin’ eyes.’
Brian Stelter
Grunthandlers like Brian are the reason why we can’t have nice things ....
LOL. These people are like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, who still protests he wasn’t doing anything. Never have the media been such blatantly, in-your-face partisan operatives before as they have been during this election cycle, with CNN being one of the worst offenders against truth and objectivity. That we now have several documents from Wikileaks illustrating the “media’s” collusion with Hillary’s campaign naturally doesn’t stop their denials.
“Nothing to see here folks move along.” Yeah just because they say so. The smugness and hubris from these swine is breathtaking.
If a physician takes a pen from a drug company representative it is looked upon as impropriety that could bias their medical decision making. Seriously. On the other hand, you can exchange emails with democrat operatives and specific democrat campaign officials, give them advice on how to respond to questions, and even provide them with the questions, and it’s not media bias.. OK. Makes total sense.....
I don't know but the off part doesn't sound right. Other that that I agree with you. Yeah, why don't we?
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.