There is no question the media coverage is the worst it’s ever been.
Reporters and news organizations have abandoned any pretense of objectivity and instead act as campaign surrogates for Hillary Clinton.
But one newspaper has had enough and apologized to their readers.
Like most local papers, The Daily Commercial of Leesburg, Florida depends on wire-service reports for national political news.
But this cycle, the Associated Press and Reuters have acted as partisan operatives rather than reporters.
Their goal has been to defeat Donald Trump.
Newsbusters reported on the newspaper’s editorial apology for using biased news sources for election coverage:
“This is less an editorial and more of an open letter to our readers. It’s part explanation, part reflection and part mea culpa.
It’s about how the media — including the Daily Commercial — has covered the presidential election.
Why, you may ask, do we feel the need to broach this topic at this late date in the election? Frankly, an uncomfortably sizable number of our readers have been writing and calling to express their dissatisfaction with what they believe is the media’s bias toward Donald Trump, and they are pointed in their criticism of the Daily Commercial, which they believe has gotten swept up in the anti-Trump wave. We felt we owed you a response.
First, it’s important to understand that, while the Daily Commercial is a local news organization first and foremost, we also see value in presenting a reasonably comprehensive platter of state, national and international news every day. For months, the contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has commanded the nation’s attention like no other story, so of course that’s what we’ve focused on as well.
….Because we have limited space and resources, smaller papers are generally limited to covering the horse race — the day in-day out happenings on the campaign trail.”
So-called journalists justify their attempts to defeat Donald Trump by claiming he presents a unique challenge.
CNN’s Dylan Byers wrote:
“Spurred by Donald Trump’s unconventional style, controversial statements and tenuous relationship with the truth, many journalists and news organizations became more emboldened in contextualizing, fact-checking and, in some cases, editorializing on developments in the campaign.
The traditional model of “he said, she said” journalism, in which news reports simply put both sides of a story against one another, was thrown out the window in favor of a more aggressive journalism that sought to prioritize accuracy over balance.
To many journalists, political scientists and media experts, this was a welcome change: It unburdened the American press from false equivalency and made them more responsible stewards of information. To critics, especially on the right side of the political spectrum, the whole endeavor laid bare the innate biases of a coastal, liberal news media.
Whatever the interpretation, the change is real, and can be seen in front-page headlines that identify lies, cable news chyrons that fact-check in real time, and the commentary of reporters on television and social media who are more unbridled than ever before in offering their assessments on the state of the race.”
But real time fact checking – which is almost always partisan Democrat opinion journalism, masquerading as objective truth seeking – and aggressive call outs of candidates by using phrases such as “falsely claims” are never applied to Hillary Clinton.
The media is consumed with their hatred of all Republicans – especially Donald Trump – and use it as their excuse to rip off the mark and act on their partisan leanings.
Some claim normal journalism – where both sides are presented and the reader draws their own conclusions – will return after the election.
However critics believe a rabidly partisan press will find it impossible to discard campaigning for their favored party, should they taste success and Hillary Clinton wins the election.