Watching the media report lie after lie about Trump shows how desperate they are to defeat the former President. Made up quotes, misrepresented statements and REFUSAL to point out President Biden is incapable of ordering an ice cream cone—but still has his finger on the nuclear button. For Harris they pretend she is saying something when she serves her word salad.
“Ms. Ruhle appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. Bill had another person on the show who happened to want to maintain our classic understanding of what our press is supposed to do in a presidential election. That is to extract the thoughts from both major candidates on the important public policy points they could be facing if elected. That person who adamantly stated he would never vote for Donald Trump is Bret Stephens of the New York Times.
He expressed at the time he could not vote for Harris however because she refuses to do any interviews, and telling Americans what her plans are for the future. That is when Ruhle took journalism to a new low. Stephens made clear that, while he will never vote for Trump, he still wanted more info from Trump’s opponent. Ms. Ruhle stated, “Kamala Harris is not running for perfect. We have two choices. And so, there are some things you might not know her answer to, and in 2024, unlike 2016, for a lot of the American people, we know exactly what Trump will do, who he is, and the kind of threat he is to democracy.”
Low taxes are a threat to “democracy” per the media. Ending wars is a threat to “democracy” per the media”. Protecting women from men in sports is a threat to “democracy”, per the media.
Maybe they can get a volume price for the therapy they need? Obviously, they should not appear on TV or in the newspapers until they get back to mental health.
Our Melting Free Press
Posted by Bruce Bialosky, Flashreport, 11/03/24 https://www.flashreport.org/blog/2024/11/03/our-melting-free-press/
Like the Wizard of Oz iconic scene where the Wicked Witch of the West melts before our eyes, our free press is likewise melting before our eyes. The difference is that Margaret Hamilton yelled “I am melting,” while the current press states they are doing their job with a level of certitude. But their actions endanger our freedoms.
Just when many thought the legacy media could not stoop to a level yet lower, they have openly achieved it in this current election. The most pronounced exhibit of this was MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle who has a regular show on that bastion of “good” journalism. You know — that network that makes CNN look moderate.
Ms. Ruhle appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. Bill had another person on the show who happened to want to maintain our classic understanding of what our press is supposed to do in a presidential election. That is to extract the thoughts from both major candidates on the important public policy points they could be facing if elected. That person who adamantly stated he would never vote for Donald Trump is Bret Stephens of the New York Times.
He expressed at the time he could not vote for Harris however because she refuses to do any interviews, and telling Americans what her plans are for the future. That is when Ruhle took journalism to a new low. Stephens made clear that, while he will never vote for Trump, he still wanted more info from Trump’s opponent. Ms. Ruhle stated, “Kamala Harris is not running for perfect. We have two choices. And so, there are some things you might not know her answer to, and in 2024, unlike 2016, for a lot of the American people, we know exactly what Trump will do, who he is, and the kind of threat he is to democracy.”
Forget the fact she hates Trump and thinks he is a danger to democracy. That is expected from someone working for MSNBC. The fact that someone who has become a significant name in the world of American journalism does not even care to find out what Trump’s opponent thinks is a new low. She didn’t even want to ask Harris a legitimate question and then nod her head when Harris inevitably answered, “I was brought up in a middle-class family.”
Stephens gathered himself from the shock of being hit with a comment like that from someone who was supposedly a fellow journalist and retorted, “People also are expected to have some idea of what the program is that you’re supposed to vote for. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for her to sit down for a real interview.” He quickly heard from his now opponent, “I would just say to that, when you move to nirvana, give me your real estate broker’s number, and I’ll be your next-door neighbor. We don’t live there.”
The new standard of journalism in our elections as defined by Ruhle and adhered to by much of the legacy press: we don’t need to know what the Democrat candidate thinks or plans; they are not the Republican candidate and that is good enough. They now tell you it is because of Trump, but don’t let them fool you. This attitude will prevail regardless of who the Republican is. Those Never-Trumpers who think it would be different if Nikki Haley were the candidate are deluding themselves.
Dana Bash of CNN reinforced this attitude when she replied to a comment on her show. “Why do we need to know what Harris is thinking.” Bash stated, “we don’t know what Trump’s plans are.” But, au contraire, we do.
Then Harris decided to sit down for her first face-to-face interview with a member of the press. Shock of shocks, she chooses to be interviewed by the very person who disavowed any interest in what she planned to do, Stephanie Ruhle. The vast majority of Americans were unaware of Ruhle’s self-defined disinterest in anything Harris told her. The interview lasted 24 minutes. After six minutes I could not tolerate the pain any longer and abandoned my attempt to endure this fake interview.
I would be remiss if I did not comment on the despicable display of slanted journalism in the last two debates that has once again lowered the level of our journalistic class. The moderators’ distorted need to interject their own opinions of what the facts are to counter the candidates displayed their inherent arrogance. Instead of letting the candidates counter each other, they had to jump in to tilt the scales in one direction. It turns out the factcheckers were wrong, but never apologized for their misdeeds.
As bad as the “moderators” were in the Trump-Harris debate, they were professional compared to Margaret Brennan in the VP debate. Let’s skip over her need to inject her opinion into the debate, which was not the worst of it. When the two candidates were having a civil, coherent back and forth, she decided to stop them on multiple occasions and state as she looked over at her teammate that “we have a lot to get to.” Meaning what we have to ask is more important than what you candidates have to say. After the third time she did it, I was screaming at the TV hoping she would be vaporized.
To display how unhinged these people have become, the recent uproar over the fact that the owners of the Los Angeles Times and Washinton Post decided their papers should not endorse a presidential candidate caused an explosion across the Legacy Media. It is not enough that daily they run fawning columns about Ms. Harris and likewise daily antagonistic columns about the despicable Trump. They feel a need to make a definitive statement. If there is any race in which a paper does not need to endorse, it is the presidential election. I assure you that their readers are fully educated on the election and thoroughly sick of the election and delighted it is nearly over. The endorsements would not have been for the readers, it would have been only for the solace of the editorial boards and their lockstep newsrooms. This clearly defines who they believe their real audience is and why they have plummeting subscription rates.
We are now faced with a future of elections without an investigative press. Certainly, no sane Republican would enter a debate with these pranksters moderating. Or maybe the way to work it is for the candidates to have buttons where they can shut off the microphones of the fake moderators. Those folks are clearly melting.
