In every election, the Republican candidate faces an uphill climb against a biased press.
But this year, the media’s liberal bias is worse than ever.
And two events highlight the glaring double-standard for all to see.
Seddique Mateen — the father of the Orlando terrorist who pledged his allegiance to ISIS before murdering 49 Americans at Pulse nightclub in Orlando — attended Hillary Clinton’s rally in Kissimmee, Florida.
He was given a prime seat behind the candidate, in full view of the television cameras.
Mateen — who has made videos backing the Taliban — expressed his support for Clinton because of her stand on national security and gun control.
The Clinton campaign said they had no idea Mateen was invited to the event, although his seat behind the candidate suggests he was placed there by either the campaign or the local Democrat Party.
The media largely accepted the campaign’s answer and moved on.
And what they moved on to was the next Donald Trump media-generated firestorm.
Speaking at a rally in North Carolina, Trump expressed his hope that pro-Second Amendment voters would defeat Hillary Clinton at the ballot box.
Trump claimed Hillary wants to eliminate the Second Amendment.
Fox News reports he also said:
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said.
Trump then added, “Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
The liberal media pitched a fit.
The website Politico featured no less than seven articles on their homepage on the issue, compared to just one about the pro-Taliban father of a terrorist attending a Hillary rally and then saying he supports her because of her positions on national security.
But the bias is becoming more blatant.
Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times media columnist, wrote a piece claiming it was a journalist’s job to slant their coverage to defeat Trump.
“If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States’ nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.
But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”
Many critics believe this is exactly what is happening.
The press has decided that the Republican nominee is a threat and must be destroyed at all costs.
Do you believe the media bias is worse this year than ever before?
Let us know what you think in the comment section.