Boycott Trump?

Trumpface
Photo courtesy: The Blaze
The Atlantic’s Ron Fournier made a not so modest proposal this week. He believes the media should boycott Donald Trump until he does the things Fournier says he should do.

Before I criticize his idea, let me note that I read most of his work and have admired him as a journalist and writer for a long time.

Sure, I want to see Trump’s tax returns. I’d like to see everything Ron would like to see, and more. As for the “Russian connection,” it takes more than a claim by a Democratic party operative and a piece in Slate to make something credible. As I’ve said in a prior piece, it took the FBI a year to determine they didn’t know who may have hit Hillary’s server. But we know in two days the Russians hacked into the DNC server because “experts.”

Fournier says political journalism has to change to meet the challenge Trump has presented. Change the rules because you can’t do your job? Now that sounds like journalism.

But boycotting The Donald isn’t enough. Fournier wants media to ban his “surrogates.” You know, those talking heads you see on TV that represent the candidates. It seems fitting Ron would link to a Media Matters “article.” Always a great Soros for news. I mean source.

More silence from a profession that professes more speech. Oh, and punish those whose speech you don’t like for good measure. Anyone else hear the Republic crashing?

Look, Fournier is a pundit. He’s there for his “learned” opinion. To be fair, I’ve seen him hit Hillary really hard too. And maybe to save his journalistic integrity just a tad, he finally gets to Hillary in the last paragraph of his piece. He’d like herself to give up the Wall Street transcripts (please…).

Yet the same Ron Fournier called Barack Obama “the least transparent president in the nation’s history,” but never called for a Barack boycott. Obama tried to prosecute reporters.

Given Hillary Clinton’s remarkable avoidance of the press, outside the most controlled of situations, and her campaign’s apparent go fuck yourself attitude. “We’ll have a press conference when we want to have a press conference” signals a continuation of Obama’s transparency plus Hillary’s epic secrecy.

Of course, being the Washington Post, the piece slams Trump throughout instead of Hillary’s controlling arrogance.

Politicians can only be this arrogant with the media’s acquiescence.

Plain and simple, it isn’t the job of journalists to try and silence speech. I can’t even believe I’m saying that. It’s dangerous and stupid.

While usually a writer who asks us to “do better,” Fournier’s suggestion does worse. It feels like the rant of a frustrated and bitter man.

Fournier says he doesn’t come to his boycott conclusion easily. So before you silence a presidential candidate, here’s a question for Ron and other journalists:

Why don’t voters have confidence in the press?

The elite media, on the left and the right, pound Donald Trump every hour of every day, yet he’s the GOP nominee and holding his own for now. Despite their best efforts over time they’ve gained little traction.

Does the media’s frustration and desire to silence a candidate come from the fact the voters have silenced the media?

 

© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet

WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks_Logo

It’s hard to know where to even start with the revelations of the leaked Democratic National Committee e-mails. Is this where I thank WikiLeaks for some great summer reading?

For starters, the Democratic National Committee seems to have rigged the primaries for Hillary Clinton and screwed Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

It also looks like there was media collusion to help Hillary Clinton.

One example was a Politico reporter sending a complete story to the DNC before publishing it. Generally not a good practice. Why is at always Politico? Remember Mike Allen?

But there’s more. I love that phrase.

Gateway Pundit put together this list of insanity.

Different media outlets and pundits (can I call them pound-its?) found their own outrage.

Here’s what the Washington Post found newsworthy

However, they didn’t find this e-mail about fundraising interesting.

Ron Fournier, who made his bones covering the Clintons, was on the mark in criticizing Hillary. This passage from his first point can only remind you of Richard Nixon and Watergate:

“So righteous in their cause and paranoid of their enemies are the Clintons, that they cut corners to victory—even when, as was the case in the race against Sanders, they would likely win without shenanigans.”

Like Tricky Dick against George McGovern, Hillary knew she’d win but couldn’t take a chance.

Then the coup de grace:

“Another hallmark of the Clinton tradecraft is to keep a safe distance from the dirty work while others get soiled.”

This is where Hillary’s machine outshines anything Nixon dreamed of.

Hillary always gets away and someone else always takes the fall. Bye bye, Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

And as always, Hillary blames others for her troubles while feigning ignorance of the whole mess. Sure, expect the nation to believe Debbie did this on her own.

Check out this portion of Clinton’s interview with 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley that never made air.

And just for fun, check out how “conservative” Twitter exploded when Hillary said she was “held to different standards.”

I always encourage news consumers to go straight to the source when possible. Here’s the WikiLeaks searchable database. Maybe you’ll come up with a gem overlooked by others. Let me know.

Search for your favorite media person, network, or cable news outlet and decide for yourself if they’re aiding a particular candidate. Or just search to your heart’s content.

The immediate response by the Democrats was to say the hacking was the work of the Russians to aid Donald Trump. Yup, those same Russians Barack Obama mocked candidate Romney about.

The aptly named Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, delivered that theory.

Those same Russians that couldn’t have possibly hacked Mrs. Clinton’s private server.

It’s certainly possible the Russians hacked the DNC. Maybe even likely.

What’s not likely is that they wrote the e-mails. Much beleaguered GOP boss Reince Preibus put it this way.

Of course the FBI is already investigating the hacking of the DNC. My guess is their involvement is more to send a chilling message to WikiLeaks and Adrian Assange, than anything. Besides, after the Hillary investigation does anyone really trust the FBI?

This administration hates leaks. [See Coleridge Election and the prosecution of journalists.]

Here we are at the end of July. We are in the midst of a political shit storm once again caused by someone whose name is Clinton. It’s clear the former Secretary of State has been the media favorite in this election cycle.

It’s now been seven months and twenty-one days since Clinton’s last open press conference. The elite media can pretty much force Clinton into a presser if they want to.

Think of what’s happened since May. The State Department Inspector General shredded HRC’s e-mail defense. The FBI’s James Comey indicted Mrs. Clinton in the court of public opinion. [See: The Immaculate Indictment]. Now, it’s obvious Hillary and her operatives rigged the Democratic primaries.

I think it’s time for the media to start asking some questions.

 

© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet