Don't Be Fooled: What the media decides is "news-worthy"

The media plays a critical role in election cycles and more so today with a 24 hour news cycle.  But as we demonstrate in our book, Vigilance the Price of Liberty, the media is bias and each news outlet will “bend” the news toward or against the party, politician, and position it favors.

For example, The Washington Post has 20 people investigating Donald Trump.  How many do they have on Hillary Clinton?  The point being, The Post has a liberal bias and will actively work against Trump.  Fox News has a bias toward Republicans and will spend more time on stories that are unfavorable to Clinton. More important, is the fact that both sides of the political media populate the airways with a lot of words about scandals and not substance.

We need to focus on what is important.  Is a call made by Donald Trump 25 years ago posing as his own publicist a pertinent story to this 2016 presidential election?  Or is a discussion of the presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, under criminal investigation of note? For us, it is the latter and let us explain our reasoning.

Hillary Clinton’s emails place the candidate under Federal criminal investigation.  Assume, as we should for now, that Clinton is innocent.  She has told us that she never sent or received an email that was marked secret.  However, the fact has been established that she did send and receive secret and classified information.

Her defense is that the emails were not marked as such at the time and the later classification was internal chatter amongst different agencies.  However, this flies in the face of one of her own emails that shows, while the information was not marked classified, she knew it to be classified.  Therefore, regardless of the outcome of the FBI investigation, did not her actions tells us she was reckless with national security information?

The media is supposed to stand as a watch dog for the people against political corruption, not pose as a political lap dog.  This protection of political candidates by the media on both sides of the isle is rampant.  It is the contrast between the two above examples that should draw the audiences’ attention: a silly phone call made over 2 decades ago vs. an FBI criminal investigation of a candidate while serving as Secretary of State.

The media will make this election about political correctness, party lines, sexism, racism or any other –ism.  It will be about who the media deems worthy of running for political office and who they will protect in that endeavor.  And it should be the American public’s endeavor to be vigilant…and be free.