If there was any doubt that the national media have it in for Hillary, just take a glance at recent coverage.
In the past week, like every week before it, the national media have worked overtime to convince the public that Hillary is a liar, continuing their interminable obsession with her State Dept. emails. Even while she’s leading her unhinged opponent by wide margins, they continue to characterize her as a loser.
Now we get this inane and insulting piece from the New York Times rehashing the stale “Hillary is inauthentic” narrative: Hillary’s New Go-To Gesture: Hand to the Heart.
When Hillary Clinton told her audience at a rally in Las Vegas on Thursday “Here’s what I believe,” she punctuated those words with not just a vocal flourish but a physical one. Up went her hand, placed over her heart. It’s a subliminal message of sincerity that some language experts consider contrived.
Got it? She’s “contrived.” According to our national media, nothing Hillary says or does is real. She’s just a cold, robotic, scheming, lying ambition machine.
Back in March of 2015, I identified the dominant anti-Hillary frames — see if you recognize them:
• CALCULATING (Scheming, crafty, manipulative)
• SECRETIVE (Suspicious, paranoid, uncommunicative)
• POLARIZING (Divisive, alienating)
• UNTRUSTWORTHY (Corrupt, deceitful, dishonest, unethical)
• OVER-AMBITIOUS (Will do or say anything to win)
• INAUTHENTIC (Disingenuous, fake, unlikable, insincere)
• INHUMAN (Machine-like, robotic, abnormal, cold)
• OVER-CONFIDENT (Inevitable, defiant, imperious, regal)
• OLD (Out of touch, represents the past)
Now think about the profoundly misplaced priorities of the NY Times (and other major media outlets) whose singular mission is to mangle Hillary’s public image even as we face the possibility of a Trump presidency.
It boggles the mind.
In response to this bizarre determination on the part of the national media to assail Hillary’s integrity, I published an open letter pointing out that several independent studies confirm Hillary receives more negative press coverage than Donald Trump. I asked why deference to supporters is present for him but absent for Hillary and why she and her voters are maligned and marginalized at every turn.
I noted the three immutable tenets of Hillary reporting:
- Always assume bad character and attribute malicious motives.
- Completely overlook and invisibilize supporters.
- Focus relentlessly on negatives (and turn positives into negatives).
I argued that the media can’t keep pretending that Donald and Hillary are equivalent. They’re not. Nor can they insist that their unfavorable ratings are remotely comparable. One candidate is a dedicated public servant who is smeared and lied about simply for existing. The other is a bloviating buffoon who lacks the most basic common decency. One is trusted and respected by the most accomplished people in the world. The other is an intolerant and dangerous bully who is toxic to his own party and mocked across the globe.
It is a travesty of epic proportions that the first woman with a viable shot at the presidency is treated with such dripping disdain by the American media.
The silver lining is that her millions of supporters see through the spin and are intent to hand Hillary’s detractors a resounding rebuke in November.
I can’t wait for that moment to come.
Oh, and there’s this: