Mainstream Media Bias : La diabolisation de M. Trump

Les mainstreams médias vous ont menti et trompés, sinon ils ont omis des informations critiques pour que vous soyez incapable d’avoir une opinion éclairée.

Dans les jours qui suit, je vais aborder certains sujets que les mainstreams médias ont réduits la portée ou tout simplement ignorés pour ne pas entacher la réputation de Hillary Clinton.

Une chance que les réseaux sociaux ont compensé le parti pris de nos médias biaisés pour empêcher la corrompue d’Hillary Clinton d’être élus.


Extrait de : Les médias ont-ils diabolisé Donald Trump ?, Azur Guirec 7 novembre 2016

La cuisine médiatique a son ingrédient fétiche de l'année 2016 : "The Donald".

Prenez une mesure de fiction, incorporez l’imaginaire au réel, versez un soupçon d’opinion, vous obtiendrez des résultats prodigieux !

« Fou furieux », « menteur », « imprévisible », « narcissique », « dangereux », « menaçant », « égocentrique », « démagogue », « raciste, « sexiste », « douteux », « vulgaire »… Une liste qu’il conviendrait d’allonger sans fin, jusqu’à épuisement complet de l’imagination, afin d’être bien certain d’avoir cerné toutes les plus grandes misères morales ! À partir de là, faire son choix pour dresser un portrait sensationnel, il y en a pour tous les goûts : les combinaisons sont infinies !

Astuce : pour relever la saveur du plat, vous pouvez y ajouter bouquet de tares psychiques. Pour ajouter du piquant rappelez-vous que toutes les considérations faciles et basses sur le faciès sont permises ! Un regard vicieux, un sourire de travers, des grimaces, des gestes gauches et outranciers, des cheveux qui ressemblent à une perruque… De quoi composer des heures de vidéos et d’images rigolotes. Servir chaud, le résultat n’en sera que meilleur.

C’est ainsi que les marmitons de la grande brigade médiatique a peaufiné un nouveau plat de saison digne du homard à l’américaine : le candidat à la présidence des États-Unis d’Amérique, Donald Trump. Un prénom de bande dessinée pour enfants, mais le potentiel prochain « leader du monde libre ».

Ses idées mises à part, que voyez-vous ?

Donal Trump est l’Elephant man du XXIe siècle. Il n’est plus le bon client en vue dans le « paysage audiovisuel » mais une vedette du cirque Barnum. Le battage médiatique n’a jamais si bien porté son nom ! La figure de l’entrepreneur, du patron de chaîne d’hôtels et promoteur de catch, a basculé dans l’étrange et le fictionnel : un être titanesque, difforme, abominable, qui n’a plus ni traits ni carrure humaine. Il devient saisissant de constater combien cette manière d’agir est proche de sa méthode, celle dont on lui fait inlassablement le reproche : « trop d’excès, trop de caricature » !

clip_image002

Cette diabolisation est un phénomène burlesque. Le nom de famille « Trump » est devenu parole performative : elle produit l’acte qu’elle énonce dans l’instant même où elle est prononcée. C’est le « Gollum » du Seigneur des Anneaux. Trump n’est plus un nom, mais un mot qui signifie et provoque l’effroi, la bassesse. Trump est entré directement dans le champ lexical de la folie. Vous n’y croyez pas ? Remplacez « Trump » par « le fou furieux » dans n’importe quel article ou reportage. Vous verrez, ça marche.

Combien peuvent encore argumenter avant d’exprimer leur opinion ? Trop peu : « Oui, Trump est dangereux, car il est raciste », « Oui, Trump est vulgaire, car il est sexiste », ou bien « Oui Trump est dangereux, car il parle comme un fou furieux ». Voyez comme dans cette dernière proposition, les termes sont devenus interchangeables : « Oui, le fou furieux est dangereux, car il parle comme Trump ». Imparable.

Quand un simple agencement d’épithètes tient lieu d’analyse

À votre tour de décliner votre propre analyse du programme et de la candidature de Donald Trump. La liste des épithètes est énumérée en haut de cet article et l’ordre importe peu. Réussirez-vous à formuler un jugement cohérent sur le sujet ?

Il ne s’agit pas ici de défendre Trump, bien au contraire ! Mais simplement de constater qu’il est malheureusement devenu impossible de décrypter l’univers trumpesque depuis un observatoire qui tient jalousement cachée la substance du personnage.

À bien des égards, l’analyse est si artificielle, grossière, absurde et la construction de l’avatar fictionnel pour saper le réel si parfaite, qu’il est impossible de porter sur les élections américaines un regard lucide. Et c’est bien dommage.


Extrait : The Undeniable, Glaring Bias of the Mainstream Media, Michael Brown, Oct 19, 2016 9:58 AM

… More recently, after the 2005 video surfaced of Donald Trump’s infamous conversation with Billy Bush, a number of women came forward accusing Trump of inappropriate sexual behavior (serious charges to be sure), and he too was dogged with this incessantly by the mainstream media, who now had even more salacious material to report.

The women were interviewed on TV, and their accusations dominated the headlines day after day. This – in contrast with the flood of stunning, Clinton-hurting, WikiLeaks revelations – was big news. This was what really mattered to the American people. This is what they needed to hear in the closing weeks before the elections.

And then yesterday, October 18, lightning struck again, but this time, it was Hillary Clinton being accused of sexual scandals (with both men and women), and the accuser was actually someone who allegedly worked closely with the Clintons for years.

The bombshell was reported once more by the National Enquirer, and it was given immediate, massive exposure by being featured as the lead story on the Drudge Report, read by millions of people each day.

You might say, “That’s odd. I didn’t hear anything about that.”

But of course. The mainstream media doesn’t think you should hear about it, just like they don’t think you hear about the WikiLeaks revelations or other stories that could help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.

clip_image004

As I scanned the online news sites of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, along with the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, and Newsweek, not one of them had one syllable about these charges against Hillary Clinton – and I searched these sites 8 hours after the Drudge headline went live.

At the same time, almost all of them had one or more article about Trump’s alleged sexual sins. (But wait. I stand corrected. The Washington Post website really did have much more important news to cover, giving pride of place to this story: First lady shimmers in Versace at the Obamas’ final state dinner. Yes, this is far more important than the other, national news.)

Why the ridiculously obvious double standard? Why the frenzied reporting of a National Enquirer report accusing Cruz of sexual infidelities but such studious silence when the same publication accuses Hillary? Did this notorious tabloid suddenly become reputable when it targeted the staunchly conservative Cruz but again became disreputable when it targeted Hillary?

Worse still, as others have pointed out, the mainstream media has all but ignored the WikiLeaks email dumps, although the information contained in them so far would be enough to sink most campaigns.

The coverage has been minimal, at best, and quite understated at that, giving the viewer the feeling that the news is marginal, while what really matters is whether Trump touched a woman on a plane 30 years ago (or, more recently, in other settings).

To further underscore this glaring double standard, if the current batch of WikiLeaks emails had come from the Trump campaign rather than the Clinton campaign, with his people insulting Catholics and with his right-hand man expressing disappointment that it was a Muslim, not a white American, who was one of the San Bernardino murderers, the media would virtually crucify Trump, with shrill calls across the nation demanding that he step down and that he fire his campaign manager immediately.

But when it is Hillary Clinton and John Podesta at the center of the firestorm, the email scandals take a very distant back seat to the sex charges against Trump. (Which, to repeat, I absolutely do not minimize, if true.)

clip_image006

And what if Trump had been guilty of using a private email server for classified government correspondence, as Hillary was? What if his staff had destroyed his laptops and cellphones, refused to answer more than 100 incriminating questions from Congress, pleading the Fifth Amendment, and then were granted immunity? The media would be shouting hysterically, “Cover up! Expose the dirty rascals!”

Instead, when it is Hillary at the center of these very serious charges, they join in the cover-up.

But should this surprise when recently released reports indicate that political donations from the media are 27-1 in favor of Hillary over Trump? And should it surprise us when off-the-record meetings are set up with media elites and the Clinton campaign?

As if further evidence of the media’s extreme bias was needed, just look at the mainstream media’s virtual blackout of two damning videos (see here and here) produced by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, apparently documenting serious campaign abuses by operatives allegedly working directly with the Clinton campaign.

You didn’t hear about those either? No surprise. The media doesn’t seem to think you should hear about them either.

clip_image008

Recently, conservative pundits Pat Buchanan and George Will have agreed with Trump that, on some level, “the system” is rigged, with Buchanan claiming that,

“Big Media is the power that sustains the forces of globalism.”

But again, none of this should surprise us. …


Extrait de : Exclusive —

CNN : Clinton News Network: Breitbart/Gravis Poll Shows Majority Thinks CNN Does Not Provide Objective Reporting
Half of

America has lost faith in the ability of CNN to provide objective news and analysis, according to the latest national poll from Breitbart News Network and Gravis Marketing.

clip_image010

A whopping 50 percent answered “no” when asked if they “trust CNN to give you objective news and analysis.” Only 32 percent, less than a third of Americans, replied “yes,” while 19 percent said they were “unsure” if CNN gives objective news and analyses.

“This election cycle has become an extreme example or case study in how the mainstream media attempts to dominate the narrative and pick winners and losers, so we wanted to get a handle on how likely voters were reacting to it,” Kaplan said.

Kaplan said these statistics have got to be alarming for executives at CNN, which Trump—the GOP nominee—has started referring to as the “Clinton News Network.”

“At some point, CNN has to pause and look at these numbers and recognize that they have a problem,” Kaplan said. “The old dodge was that the media gets criticized by both sides, so it must be in the middle. It is pretty clear in 2016 with CNN there is no more middle.


CNN boycott

Why

For those who have been following U.S. politics the past few months, it's pretty much common knowledge that CNN is extremely biased for Hillary Clinton. This can probably attributed to the fact that CNN's parent company Time Warner, is the 8th largest donor to Hillary in her poltical career. Regardless of which candidate (other than Hillary) you are supporting, we all know that as long as CNN is covering anything related to politics, opponents of Hillary's are not being fairly covered.

Not only are they biased in their coverage, they are clearly pushing an agenda, attempting to influence the casual viewer into believing their politics. As a major American news network, CNN should be giving or at least attempting to not take stances in their coverage. But unfortunately, CNN is owned and operated by large puppeteers in the background. So even trying to negotiate with them seems pointless. Thats why we have to just avoid them completely.

"And let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that CNN doesn't know what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing. CNN is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country.." "Here's the bottom line. This notion that CNN doesn't know what they're doing is just not true. They know exactly what they're doing".


Media Lies and Media Bias: Why Trump is Under Attack (1)

Those who work in the “news” industry are obsessed with promoting lies and half-truths to destroy political candidates they do not like, instead of just doing their jobs and reporting the news.

Last month, Donald Trump became the latest to fall victim to the liars in the “news” media, as they feverishly reported Trump’s “Anti Mexican” remarks, painting him as a racist and a hate monger.

Here’s what he actually said:

“The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems,” Trump said. “It’s true. And these aren’t the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime; they’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

That’s a far cry from “All Mexicans are rapists,” or “All immigrants are killers”.

But, that didn’t stop the liars in the news media from deceiving the American public about what Trump said.

CNN’s Brook Baldwin actually reported: “Donald Trump called all Mexicans rapists and killers” following up by calling his remarks “Anti-Mexican” and that Trump “called all immigrants killers”.

It was simply an outright lie. But Baldwin was not alone. Every news outlet followed by repeating the lie … over and over again in the hopes that stupid people will be outraged.

They succeeded.