In this anti-establishment election season, one of the establishments that has been most exposed is the mainstream media. The latent media bias against Republicans they once attempted to deny has now been outed and confirmed — by none other than the media themselves. Just this week, New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg acknowledged the media’s abandonment of the most foundational principles of objective journalism — balanced reporting — in favor of tilting reporting against one candidate. Rutenberg “justified” this willful bias by his media colleagues by suggesting that Trump is “dangerous” — and therefore must be stopped — a premise I (Michelle Jesse) and others patently reject.One has to wonder if even the NYT’s Rutenberg, however, would see out-and-out fabrication by the media as a bridge too far in its quest to stop a candidate they fear. Which, it appears, is exactly what CNN (Clinton News Network) was doing — until they were exposed by none other than fellow media organization, Reuters.
Via Breitbart:The Reuters news service has poured cold water on CNN’s overheated claim that the Secret Service warned Donald Trump’s campaign that his gun rights rhetoric seemed to threaten the safety of Hillary Clinton.
Trump and his campaign had denied CNN’s claim of Secret Service concern. And Reuters confirmed CNN’s claim was false.
Reuters reported that “a federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump’s presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.”
On Tuesday, Democrats, and many parts of the established media, claimed that Trump had casually threatened Hillary Clinton during an off-the-cuff campaign speech. This media-magnified claim — just like other claims, whether true or not — helps the Democrats’ push their narrative that Trump is too unstable to risk putting in the White House.
Here are Trump’s comments that Democrats used to create the media furor;
Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we’re tied.
CNN kept the controversy going Wednesday evening with a claim that Secret Service officials warned Trump’s campaign about the remarks. In an updated version of the article published at 8.30 pm, CNN claimed:
A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.
“There has been more than one conversation” on the topic, the official told CNN.
However, CNN also undermined its own 8.30 pm article by saying that “it’s unclear at what level in the campaign structure the conversations occurred.”
Apparently, vagueness helps when propagating a fabrication.
The Reuters article was published 8.57 pm, or almost 30 minutes later. Headlined, “Official: No formal Secret Service discussions with Trump camp on remark,” the Reuters article said:
A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump’s presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.
… Earlier CNN had reported that there had been multiple conversations between the campaign and the agency.
It appears that CNN, the Clinton News Network, has officially abandoned shame along with journalistic integrity.
Extraordinary times when much of our nation’s Fourth Estate has become, in essence, a communications arm of one of the two candidates running for president. While the NYT’s Rutenberg attempts to justify their tilting in favor of Clinton and against Trump because Trump is “dangerous,” hard to think of many bigger threats to our republic and its freedoms than the abdication of objectivity by the so-called free press that is essential to citizens making — their own — informed choices about who to choose as their leader of the government that is of the people, by the people and most importantly, for the people.
[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]