So you tell me when you watch the evening news where segments NEGATIVE to Trump start off the news. First thing.... then a little later less time and far less negative words used for Hillary. Want proof of that???
But since the conventions, and fueled by his own missteps, Trump has been hit by a tsunami of
negative coverage, all but swamping the reporting on Hillary Clinton.
Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that
“the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”—and, given his views, he has no problem with that.
Now comes Jim Rutenberg, in his first season as media columnist for the
New York Times. He’s a good reporter and I give him credit for trying to openly grapple with this bizarre situation.
But Rutenberg is, in my view, trying to defend the indefensible:
“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, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”
Media Justify Anti-trump Bias, Claim He's Too 'dangerous' For Normal Rules
So you totally uninformed people that say "what MSM bias"???
Explain to me Mr. Greenwald statement:
the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”
