Donald Trump

Read the One Daily Newspaper Editorial in America Endorsing Donald Trump

How journalists might think about comporting themselves now that the Republican nominee and the Fourth Estate have officially taken opposing sides.

|

St. Joseph News-Press. ||| St. Joseph News-Press
St. Joseph News-Press

Well, it only took until 23 days before the election, but we finally have our first American daily newspaper editorial endorsing Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in the general election. It was published Sunday in the St. Joseph News-Press (circulation 26,000) of northwest Missouri, and brings the unofficial Wikipedia count of endorsements to Hillary Clinton 147, Gary Johnson 6, and Donald Trump 2 (the other being a single note in the iconoclastic Santa Barbara News-Press). Fifteen papers have declined to endorse, and another 9 just urged readers to not vote Trump, so you could plausibly argue that the GOP candidate has -7 daily newspaper endorsements.

The editorial in question takes a kind of warts-and-all approach, underlining that Trump will serve as a change agent in concert with a Republican Congress to break up the excesses and sclerosis of a corrupt status quo:

No one will suggest Trump is without flaws and a personal history that is best left in the past. Coarse and even crude behavior on one's record is nothing to be proud of or to put forward as a model for young people. But these matters do not rise to the point of disqualifying him in a race against a candidate who has done so much over the last 30 years to abuse the public's trust. […]

Donald Trump became relevant due to the glaring failings of an entrenched governing bureaucracy defined by Obama and Clinton. A vote for Trump is a vote to change this dynamic and to cast our lot with a movement that is bigger than Trump alone.

So even Trump's lone supporter in the Fourth Estate is holding its collective nose a bit.

Ever since the Billy Bush tape, which Trump responded to by breaking free of his "shackles," his campaign-long Cold War against the always-unpopular media has been dialed up to Defcon 2. Hyperbolic surrogates such as Newt Gingrich are accusing the media of engineering a "coup d'etat" led by "20 TV executives [who] have decided to destroy him."

But the campaign is not the only party removing restraints. Many journalists have been responding to the Trump challenge by loudly taking off their own gloves, calling lies "lies" (particularly when uttered by Trump, if we are being honest), and demanding a romanticized "Murrow moment" to confront the orange-hued populist right in the face. You wanna call us biased? I got yer bias right here!

Especially when you're wrong. ||| Reason
Reason

It's a difficult dance, taking off the shackles of "false equivalence" (this cycle's go-to phrase for journalists urging other journalists to go harder at Trump) while insisting it's all in the cause of Greater Truth. As I wrote here in 2013, intrinsic bias can combine with emboldened bullshit-detection to produce almost comically one-sided exercises in "fact-checking." Unhelpfully for those who seek to maintain that balancing act, the Columbia Journalism Review this week ran an article with the headline "Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash." The nut:

People identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television anchors—as well as other donors known to be working in journalism—have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

More than 96 percent of that cash has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity's analysis indicates.

About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump.

Also unhelpful is that this same story runs every four years. And adding further fuel to the Trumpian fire, the Wikileaks Podesta emails show plenty of embarrassing journalistic suck-uppery to Team Clinton.

As someone who shares many (though thankfully not all!) of the mores and attitudes of the hated MSM (including an early and complete revulsion at all things Trump), I have three friendly suggestions for my colleagues to navigate this unprecedented terrain in which an entire ostensibly impartial industry is seemingly allied against a single politician:

||| Gallup
Gallup

1) Disclose and confront your own biases. Yes, all of your staff is voting against Trump, as would be confirmed if you had the baseline courage and philosophical consistency of asking employees to volunteer their voting intentions. But there are less predictable elections, and more internal reasons for having a rough partisan breakdown of a newsroom. If a media outlet dedicated to fairness is as ideologically lopsided as a university psychology department, then you are going to produce a biased selection of news.

2) Lose some of the haughty, of-COURSE-we're-fair grandeur. The news media is consistently one of the least trusted institutions in civil society. That is not the creation of Donald Trump, or the Republican Party, or talk radio, or Fox News. They all took advantage of a market opportunity you helped create. It is possible—even advisable!—to get after the challenge of fact-checking the Donald Trumps and Hillary Clintons of the world without bathing yourself in professional self-righteousness. A little humility can go a long way, not least in dialing back the certainty of your rectitude.

3) Remember that no one died and made you guardians of the republic. This point is related to #2, but also acknowledges an added human temptation. Donald Trump has made you the Enemy (or at least co-enemy), and so the natural instinct is to raise up on your hind legs and bare those claws. That should be avoided. If you hate-hate-hate being treated as synonymous with the Clinton campaign (and you do), then it's all the more prudent to act like a journalist more than a surrogate.

And barring all that, just show us your vote!

NEXT: The Fear of a Rigged Election Is Not New

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This morning NPR proudly announced they’d be covering “and Fact Checking!” the next debate.

    Is this concept of live-fact-checking going to be a thing going forward, like the news-channel ticker after 9/11?

    1. Only as long as Trump is running.

      1. Nope, it will be a feature from here on out. It will mainly be used against anyone who isn’t a Democrat, but once you get away with something once there is no reason to stop.

        1. Maybe. It may depends on whether the next Republican is an establishment figure or not.

          1. No. Don’t forget what Candy Crowley did to Mitt Romney, and he’s as establishment as it’s possible to be without being named Bush.

            It’s going to be a constant from now on, and it’s only going to go one way (with a small occasional tweak to show that they’re ‘fair’)

            1. I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $70h to $86h?Go to this website and click tech tab to start your work? Visit this web? http://www.14EarnPath.Com

      2. No, because the next Republican candidate will be the Most. Dangerous. Ever.

        1. I’m waiting for an election that isn’t THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN OUR LIFETIME!

          1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

            go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,, http://www.highpay90.com

    2. Trump: Obama has murderdroned 269 Pakistani civilians.

      NPR: The true fact is that President Obama has authorized drone strikes that may have killed several thousand Pakistani civilians. Therefore, Trump is a liar.

      1. Trump: The deficit has doubled during Obama’s presidency.

        FactCheck: While the deficit has doubled in nominal dollars, it has only increased 65% in terms of GDP. Trump is a liar.

        (I think this was actually used (basically) after one of the debates)

        1. Trump: Alaska and Hawaii are the last two states to join the Union.

          FactCheck: It cannot be known whether the US will add other states to the Union in the future. Therefore, Trump is a liar.

          Trump: The sky is blue.

          FactCheck: Color researchers have officially designated the sky “Celeste”. Therefore, Trump is a liar.

          Trump: Joe Montana wore #16.

          FactCheck: Joe Montana wore #19, as shown here. Therefore, Trump is a liar.

          1. Trump: I am a liar.

            FactCheck: As Trump is lying in his statement about being a liar, he is in fact declaring that he is telling the truth. Therefore, Trump is a liar.

            1. Trump: I just grab them by the pussy.

              FactCheck: One cannot grab just the pussy, without grasping skin in non-pussy areas. Therefore, Trump is a liar.

              1. Hillary: We came, we saw…he died.

                FactCheck: That sequence of events is accurate. Verdict: TRUE

                Trump: I agree with my opponent. We came, we saw, he died.

                FactCheck: First of all, Mr. Trump fails to identify the persons named only by pronouns. Second, he incorrectly includes himself in the group that killed Col. Qaddafi. Third, when Mr. Trump says “he died”, he implies that Col. Qaddafi died due to natural causes when he in fact was killed. Verdict: COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE

            2. Landrew is having a conniption fit.

        2. That sounded more like Snopes.

      2. It’s like you’re looking into the future.

      3. Trump: Hillary Clinton was let off the hook for mismanaging her email server while General David Petraeus was punished.

        Politifact: Petraeus gave his biographer/floozy-of-the-month Paula Broadwell notebooks with classified information in them. She made copies of 300 pages marked “secret.” Clinton, on the other hand, turned over only enough emails for investigators to find 110 that contained secret or classified data. So obviously, because 110 is a lower number than 300, it makes sense that Petraeus was charged with a misdemeanor and fined $100,000, but Clinton got off with nothing more than a cluck of disapproval.

        Here at Politifact, we choose to ignore that Clinton deliberately deleted 30,000 emails before turning any over. We’re also not interested in the fact that she lied about the existence of the 110 that she did allow them to find. We’re rating this claim False, because our Truth-o-Meter is tucked way down into Clinton’s giant granny panties.

        It’s just like when a thief dumps all the stuff he stole over the edge of a cliff, and doesn’t have the stolen stuff anymore. He’s now clean and innocent.

      4. Oh, this one, too. I love this one.

        Trump: Check out all the gadawful shit Hillary and her campaign said in those leaked emails.

        Politifact: Sure she did. But after we get done adding our spin, we’ll rate your claim false. Hahahaha, we’re so unbiased.

    3. “NPR WILL GOOGLE ANSWERS”

    4. Yeah, get used to it.

  2. Fifteen papers have declined to endorse, and another 9 just urged readers to not vote Trump, so you could plausibly argue that the GOP candidate has -7 daily newspaper endorsements.

    Is that math correct?

    1. 2 – 9 = -7

      1. Math is for losers. Sad.

      2. I didn’t see the second paper, as I don’t lower myself to reading parenthetical statements.

        1. Then it’s a good thing I didn’t write the equation like this:

          2 + (-9) = -7

          1. That 9 is like one third Jew.

  3. About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump.

    They misspelled “certifiable”.

    1. He also left off the scare quotes around the word “journalists.”

  4. “now that ….. the Fourth Estate have officially taken opposing sides.”

    You just now noticed this?! Top Men at Reason I tell you.

  5. We wanted to make sure everyone on this email had the latest information on the two upcoming dinners with reporters. Both are off-the-record.

    You know, Doctors get (rightly) criticized for attending drug company events and what not… hell, they even make movies about it… do journalists have any obligation to avoid these events, whether or not they’re in the tank for the candidate?

    1. I’m actually more in the Moynihan camp on this – I’d rather they wear their biases openly instead of trying to hide behind the veneer of impartiality. And if there is a market for an outlet that truly tries to limit biases, then great. I’d go in for that (in addition to my Reason addiction).

      1. I agree, but attending off-the-record invite-only events hosted by the candidate seems creepy. I don’t have a problem with individual journalistic bias, but it’d be nice to know if they’re on the candidate’s payroll.

      2. Democrats by definition are impartial and are the only impartial group

        /newspeak

  6. But there are less predictable elections, and more internal reasons for having a rough partisan breakdown of a newsroom.

    I expect this from Reason’s millennials, but you’re better than that, Matt.

  7. The media is biased.
    Biased against hatred, sexism, racism, incompetence, belligerence, inequality, To name a few.

    The media is pretty actively in favor of all of these, as long as the incompetence is by a Democrat and the rest is not directed at a minority or a woman. Vote for her because it’s time for the first female president, but we’re totally against sexism!

    1. The media is just so darned good, aren’t they?

  8. So what’s this article saying exactly? It’s okay to be a Clinton shill as long as you confess to it? Kettle, thy name is Reason.

    1. DRINK!

      1. All sanctimony, no argument.

      2. I’m starting to think you have a problem. But it makes for good commentary so drink up.

        1. You’re gonna get the double-bird if you keep sassing him like that.

        2. I’ll drink up anyways. What’s your point?

        3. I’ll drink up anyways. What’s your point?

          1. Double shots with the squirrels?

    2. Is it getting more difficult to distinguish the ironic portrayals of retarded yokeltarian commenters from the genuinely retarded yokeltarian commenters, or am I just getting too worn out to bother?

      1. Progressives like yourself tend to have a low aptitude for lots of things. Don’t beat yourself up.

        1. See, calling someone who expresses a different opinion from you a Progressive rather than a prog or a proggie makes me think you’re faking it. Poe’s Law is a harsh mistress.

          1. It’s all just buzzwords anymore.

    3. I don’t think that’s it. Especially if you read point #3.

      I’d say the point is that it’s better not to be a shill at all if you claim to be a journalist, but if you must, don’t try to hide it.

      As for what’s OK, what is OK supposed to mean? It’s OK to be a Clinton shill in the sense that people should do what they think is appropriate and/or necessary. And it’s OK in the legal sense because of free press. It’s not OK in the sense that I think it’s a load of shit and it’s dishonest.

      You could probably accuse Reason of being excessively anti-Trump, but “Clinton shill” is pretty ridiculous.

      1. One need not like Clinton to carry her water. I imagine that’s true of most of her supporters, so there are no real brownie points to award for that.

    4. No offense, but do you think that maybe, just maybe, you’re being a bit oversensitive here? Welch is an outlier in that he’s pointing out that the majority of the media is in the tank for Clinton. A media that at least acknowledged its biases would be a lot closer to an honest conversation than having them continue to with the pretense of objectivity.

  9. Many journalists are biased in favor of accountability, and corruption, and being close to absolute power.

    1. **Unaccountability. Jeepers.

  10. Yes. The media is biased. Biased against hatred, sexism, racism, incompetence, belligerence, inequality, To name a few.

    Remove the obvious and laughable implication that Clinton shares none of these flaws, and you still have some guy claiming that the point of “the media” is to root out social injustice now!

    lolwut?

    1. The media with it’s astoundingly low approval ratings and trust afforded to it, proudly declares that the only crime they’re guilty of, is being so damn right all the time. I mean how exactly can they possibly square their terrible reputation with their belief that they’re so damn pure? Maybe they can argue that the media must have been portrayed unfairly in the media.

      1. The media with it’s astoundingly low approval ratings and trust afforded to it, proudly declares that the only crime they’re guilty of, is being so damn right all the time.

        The media is like congress. Everyone hates it in general and loves the little part that agrees with them.

        1. But yet the alternative media that sprung from the likes of youtube is collectively getting better ratings than any of the traditional outlets. Most nationally circulated newspapers are only kept afloat by the largess of rich ideologues trying to make use of the prestigious brand for propaganda value. Meanwhile the broadcast networks are fighting to the death for relevance and the 24/7 news networks, with the exception of probably Fox struggle just to keep their viewership from diminishing, and forget about growing.

          1. Too bad congress can’t go out of business.

            1. All states go out of business eventually. Let’s just hope this time they don’t pull civilization down with them, as they are wont to do.

              1. Well, yeah, that seems to be true.

                I mean more like a media company can go out of business from lack of interest. If we all stop voting and paying attention to congress, they just keep going.

      2. Yeah, its basically “Don’t hate us because we’re smarter and better looking than you!”

  11. Yes. The media is biased.
    Biased against hatred, sexism, racism, incompetence, belligerence, inequality, To name a few.

    Which, in and of itself, I don’t really have a problem with. But they toss around those terms to smear anyone they don’t like regardless of whether or not they are accurate, and ignore them in people they do like. So, yeah, sorry, but I think there are some other biases at play there.

    BTW, Trump embodies or has at least played footsie with all of those.

    1. Hatred is among the available emotions to humans for a reason. And there’s nothing wrong with inequality.

      1. Agree on inequality (personally…I understand, somewhat, why it seems wrong to people even if I don’t agree). Missed that one in the tweet.

        As for hatred, yeah, it’s a normal human emotion. Tribalism is, too. I’m not a particularly big fan of either.

      2. And rape and murder are things that people do for a reason.

        Part of the process of civilization is reining in certain emotional reactions that make it more difficult for people to cooperate in larger groups.

        1. Having principles is for cucks. Or so I’ve been told.

          If you’re not trying to “win” at all costs, you’re losing… or something to that effect.

        2. @Lynchpin:

          Tribalism is, too.

          Tribalism is a model of social cooperation, not an ingrained feature of humanity, social interaction and cooperation are however innately human. Tribalism merely one expression of human sociality that makes sense in certain times, places and circumstances, sometimes it’s even a superior model to that of the nation-state.
          @Zeb

          And rape and murder are things that people do for a reason.

          Not for good reasons like the reasons we have emotions in the first place.

          Part of the process of civilization is reining in certain emotional reactions that make it more difficult for people to cooperate in larger groups.

          It’s healthy to hate, for example, those whose intention it is to rape and murder you. It’s a survival mechanism. I also happen to hate Barack Obama and his ilk, that doesn’t mean I’m not in control of my emotions or that I’m uncivilized for hating the man.

          1. Tribalism is a model of social cooperation, not an ingrained feature of humanity,

            Couple of thoughts:

            Tribalism is a model for identifying who you will cooperate with, and, importantly, who you won’t.

            I’m not so sure it isn’t ingrained. Everyone has a group of people they identify with, usually pretty small (no more than 200; the “monkeysphere”). The vast majority of people simply cannot have a “circle” any bigger than that. Think of it as the number of people whose name you know on sight, reflexively. Those are your “tribe” and everyone else is “not-tribe”. I don’t think there is any way around this way of looking at the people you encounter, myself.

            1. I think it’s probably ingrained too. Small groups are pretty much the natural state that we lived in for many thousands of years.
              People can learn to be more compassionate toward humanity as a whole, but we still only really care about the in group. And under more stressful conditions, that tendency only becomes stronger.

              That said, I think that innate impulse is the one most important to overcome in a modern connected world. I’m not saying it’s good or desirable for people to stop caring most about the people they are actually close to. But the extended tribalism of always worrying about whose ancestors screwed whose is a terrible thing.

              1. What if we’re just selecting the tribes we join differently? Is there a journalism tribe that cares only for its values? A financial elite tribe with different social mores? A political elite tribe trying to suppress other larger tribes as surely as the Alawi rule over everyone else in Syria?

                You don’t even want to know what tribe I belong to.

          2. Not for good reasons like the reasons we have emotions in the first place.

            I’m not so sure. Rape can be an effective reproductive strategy. As can increased willingness to kill people outside of your in-group.

            I don’t know if any of it really has reasons. “Explanations” is more the word. But I’m probably just getting bogged down in semantics now.

  12. I’ve stopped even attempting to talk about media bias with people. Trump is so “dangerous” that you can’t be biased enough against him, apparently.

    1. Sometimes, when the stakes are high and the candidate is so terribly dangerous, you have to put aside your impartiality and let your bias come through. Your duty to humanity is much more important than looking unbiased. Like with Donald Trump. And also George Bush. And Mitt Romney. And John McCain. And the other George Bush. And Ronald Reagan. And also other candidates who run against Democrats in the future. But ONLY UNDER SUCH EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES!

      1. And only during important elections, like 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, (1994), 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2016.

        1. BUT WHAT ABOUT 2012?!?!? HOW COULD YOU FORGET ABOUT REELECTING THE GREAT ONE?

    2. You get the impression that being able to hate openly is a relief for some people.

      1. Of course it is. When the close proximity of fellow tribesmen alerts you to their less life-affirming traits, a reminder that something truly awful lurks without makes the strain more bearable and lets you channel your frustration outward. Every tribe has its other. But with political correctness in full tilt, there aren’t many groups you’re still allowed to other.

    3. I’m far less bothered by the anti-Trump bias than by the pro-Hillary bias. If the media were horribly biased against all politicians, that would be great. Assuming they are all liars and in it for themselves is a good starting assumption.

      1. That would be too much like being a real Fifth Estate.

          1. Fourth. Derp.

            1. sounds like a Freudian-ish slip there. You were trying to say ‘Fourth Estate’, but your soul was saying ‘Fifth Column’.

              1. Fifth Estate is a real thing. It refers to blogs, online magazines and other sources of news outside the traditional mediums.

                1. And the sixth estate is angry old guys yelling at clouds.

  13. Donald Trump became relevant due to the glaring failings of an entrenched governing bureaucracy defined by Obama and Clinton.

    That’s a goddamned lie. He became relevant the moment he categorically asserted that more than half of Mexican immigrants are ‘rapists’ and ‘drug dealers’ (he implied it the moment he added ‘and some, I assume, are good people‘ in a failed attempt at being witty). He made all the knuckle-draggers feel happy about their own mediocrity. People who aren’t happy with the entrenched governing bureaucracy could’ve looked at Rand, Gary or even Bernie and many DID. The knuckle-draggers, however, want a fucking wall and they shall get it, good and hard.

    1. You mad bro?

      1. I’m on fire today!

        How about you? The kids all right and shit?

        1. Yep, four grandchildren with their original mom and dad, all healthy with good friends while learning good stuff in school.

          1. You’re truly blessed. Honestly.

            I have two kids in school, growing up fast, a long as I keep feeding ’em.

            1. Believe me, I know it and stay thankful.

    2. He became relevant the moment he categorically asserted that more than half of Mexican immigrants are ‘rapists’ and ‘drug dealers’

      Even Salon doesn’t believe that. Salon thinks you are nuts Mexican. Let that sink in for a bit.

      http://www.salon.com/2015/12/21/the_m…..e_honesty/

      Here is what he said

      When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. [?] When Mexico sends its people they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you; 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. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.”

      And if you really are a Mexican, you know good and well the typical Mexican who lives in Mexico thinks the same thing.

  14. I never decide who to vote for until I read the carefully reasoned and considered editorial opinions of newspapers that are full of fluff and bullshit on every other subject.

  15. But crackerjack reporters are the only thing standing between Freedom and Tyranny!

    1. Ahh. So THAT’S what’s gone wrong during the last 30 years or so. I was wondering.

  16. Wasn’t Romney, like McCain before him, so insanely rightwing that he needed to be journo-checked, as well?

    1. Yes, there is a pattern of Rs fielding dangerous candidates, but we are often delivered from harm by unlikely saviors. I remember the little girl picking daisies who warned us away from Goldwater and his atomic war, thus allowing LBJ to give us the Great Society under which we live in joyous peace and freedom to this day.

      1. As my father told me, “people said if I voted for Goldwater there would be an escalation of the Vietnam War and darned if they weren’t right”.

    2. Yes, here was the absolutely crazy-assed shit that Romney said that was so horrible, so awful, that only Hitler made such dangerous and hateful remarks.

      Rommey’s remarks are even more outrageous because he’s attacking the president in inflamatory ways on the aniversary of the 9/11 attacks, where, in contrast, Obama is trying to maintain a firm hand but lower the temperature in the diplomatic arena.

      1. Worst president ever? Only time can tell.

      2. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10…..raudulent/

        Now they are admitting that the whole “binders of women” thing was just a fraud. Gee it really wasn’t a big deal I guess.

        1. Some of those tweets don’t fully acknowledge it was a fraud, but was merely ‘tame’ compared to the awfulness that is trump. My skim shows only Ben Dreyfuss of MoJo and the producer of the Daily Show as essentially admitting it was all fake. So kudos to them.

          1. As the Daily Caller writer points it, no one ever could explain why it made Romney look bad. They all just pretended it did and anyone who pointed out how stupid it was was just a sexist or something.

            1. Speaking as someone who more or less disliked Romney and Obama equally, I didn’t take the “binders” thing as offensive at all, just proof that he was awkward as hell. It confused me* that anyone did.

              *and by confused me, I mean made no sense why anyone would care except those who already hated him and just wanted something to rage about, which was the vast majority of those actually hyping it up.

            2. Oh I remember that and I had the same confusion. I kept hearing the ‘binders of women’ refrain again and again and again followed by twitters, but I never understood what it meant or why it was funny.

  17. Holy cow, is endorsing no one at all impossible to do? I mean, come on. Sure, Trump sucks. Fine. And Johnson is with the LP, which apparently is worse than Satan. But Clinton is bad, totally corrupt, and is clearly guilty of multiple crimes. Even for diehard progressives, you’d think that would be enough for no endorsement at all.

    The numbers once again show, overwhelmingly, the scope of political bias. This is all so unbelievable.

    1. Re: Pro Libertate,

      But Clinton is bad, totally corrupt, and is clearly guilty of multiple crimes. Even for diehard progressives, you’d think that would be enough for no endorsement at all.

      But she’s the most qualified candidate this world has ever seen. The same press that keeps telling us that the economy is booming told me so.

      1. There is an objective reality. And we’re speeding at it like it was a bridge we wanted to jump. . .rather than a brick wall.

        1. But Wile E. Coyote painted a tunnel on the wall, so it’s okay.

          1. I believe that is literally true, only it wasn’t a coyote.

      2. I haven’t tried to wade into the arguments of this when I’ve seen it, but it boggles my mind. How could anyone think that? She’s got one stint as a senator and 4 pathetic years as Secretary of State. She’s got a decade of any kind of experience.

        Even if you like her stances, or are so sexist that you want to vote for her because she’s a woman, you’re still just a straight up lair suggesting that no candidate has ever had 13 years of experience (let alone experience as an actual executive).

        1. Make no mistake, she was running the White House in the 90s.

    2. the LP, which apparently is worse than Satan.

      It wants to make government smaller… and it’s not joking.

      *audience laughter*

      1. Nothing proves the total lie that the establishment GOP is in any way small government than its constant repudiation of libertarian and LP candidates. At some point, it has to be the ideas they reject, not the people.

  18. I would love to have seen the smug look on Jim Roberts face as he bashed out that tweet, sure as shit that he had just PWNED a bunch of fools.

    And his Twitter feed is a fucking dumpster fire. I should have known better than to click it.

    1. That could be the scariest part (the idea that Roberts probably thinks he just did something important).

      What a little crapweasel he is.

    2. I’m beginning to come around to John’s assertion that journalists are among the dumbest people on the planet. Being pants-on-head retarded by itself is not a bad thing, but when the retards start to act smug and superior to people with knowledge far above their own on damn near any subject, well, I guess it’s no surprise journalists are trusted about as much as used-car salesmen.

  19. Journalists will instantly call into question the integrity of any person who has an opinion differing from their own, but insist that their own biases have absolutely nothing to do with how they report the news. Are they truly naive enough to believe this? Or do they simply hope that the rest of us are naive enough to believe it?

    1. Your spell-checker keeps changing “stupid” to “naive”. You should have that looked at.

  20. As someone who shares many (though thankfully not all!) of the mores and attitudes of the hated MSM

    At least you are honest. Matt you are not a bad guy and unlike most journalists, you don’t seem too stupid. I am sure you could find a better way to make a living. Journalists are scum and some of the dumbest people on earth. Why do you want to associate with them much less share their mores? What mores of theirs could you possible want to share?

    1. I think Matt is looking to do the right thing. I’m all for him trying. It is a sliver of hope in a media basket of deplorables.

      1. I think he means well and he is better than 95% of them for sure. I just think he would do well to stop sharing any of their mores.

        1. So, what are you saying? Journalists are all wrong about everything?

          I don’t think they are quite so far gone that they share no mores with regular decent folk.

          You are getting awfully close to an actual ad hominem argument here: Journalists are awful, so everything they believe and value is therefore awful and no decent person should agree with them on anything.

        2. He meant smores. It was a typo. He wants them to share their smores. Mmmm….

  21. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifesty…..story.html

    Meanwhile, Trump rallies have become “menacing” towards journalists. I actually think this is likely true. When you openly loath an entire section of the country and make it clear you will do or say anything to make sure they have no say in the government, they are likely going to get menacing. IF I were a journalist, I would pray Trump wins because if he doesn’t, journalists are going to be blamed for it and the guy who comes after Trump is going to be much worse.

    1. And it’s funny because neither sees the symbiotic relationship that has developed. The journalists should love Trump, because he makes their jobs easy and entertaining. And Trump wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without the media freaking out over every thing he says.

    2. People say mean things to journalists – OMG, the end of the world!

      People assault Trump supporters, set their cars on fire, and firebomb campaign offices – eh, they had it coming.

      1. Right wing violence is always an existential threat to everything good.

        Left wing violence is excused for some reason that I can’t think of. Or it’s bad, but only because of a few bad apples.

        1. Right Wing violence holds society back. Left wing violence forces it forward.

    3. Journalists spent eight or nine months kissing the guy’s ass. He was permitted to call in to most of his TV interviews for months. He got these candy-asses to pitch him nothing but softballs, by throwing tantrums and threatening to withhold his money-making presence from their stages. CNN would leave cameras focused on empty podiums at his stump speeches for hours in aggregate: forget about what else is going on in the world right now, we’re going to sit here and wait for Trump to show up because we like the ratings we get from him. The stupid fuckers showed up to the grand opening of one of his hotels last month, and lapped it up like milk, even while bitching that he’d fooled them…again.

      They made this guy. They gave him billions in free airtime. They thought he’d never get the nomination because he’s not one of them, so they treated America to everything that dribbled out of his orange Tic Tac hole. Endlessly. And now they seem puzzled at the surprisingly large wedge of Americans who aren’t interested in helping them kill the monster they created.

  22. My favorite factoid of the day is that many newspapers, including the NYT, apparently have policies against reporters donating to candidates.

    But the reporters do anyway, and nothing else happens. One suspects that if 95% of the contributions went to a Republican, the policy would be enforced. But, since reporters donate to the One Candidate Who Is Right and True and Just, the policy is ignored.

  23. Jim Roberts, if the media are against incompetence, racism and sexism, then why are they shilling for Hilary (whose excuses for her malfeasance is she dies not know how things work? Why were they for Obama because he is black? Supporting Clinton because she is a woman?

  24. Yes. The media is biased.
    Biased against hatred, sexism, racism, incompetence, belligerence, inequality, To name a few.

    But apparently the media is not biased against traitors, murderers, thieves, liars, and war mongers, as long as they do so while holding public office.

    So who cares that Hilary Clinton is using her influence to have Julian Assange “disappeared” – she’s an experienced bureaucrat. God forbid people get a president who’s biggest fault is that he insults people without ever having held public office.

  25. The response to the Roberts tweets are both brutal and hysterical.

    BellyUpDallas ?@BellyUpDallas Oct 16
    @nycjim did you come up with that statement at Podesta’s house over dinner?

  26. RE: Read the One Daily Newspaper Editorial in America Endorsing Donald Trump

    If you’ve read one newspaper endorsing Trump (or Hillary), you’ve read them all.

  27. Greater Good, Greater Truth, either way it ends with dead bodies….

  28. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  29. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  30. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  31. my best friends mum got an awesome red MINI Cooper Coupe by working part-time off of a laptop. website link.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-online.jobs14.com

  32. my best friends mum got an awesome red MINI Cooper Coupe by working part-time off of a laptop. website link.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-online.jobs14.com

  33. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  34. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $100 per hour. I work through this link

    ???????????? http://www.Reportmax90.com

  35. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  36. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  37. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  38. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  39. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.