WASHINGTON, November 22, 2016 — The media are engaged in some soul searching in the aftermath of the presidential election. The very morning Americans were heading to the polls, Josh Katz at the New York Times wrote that, based on the “latest state and national polls,” Democrat Hillary Clinton had an 85 percent chance of winning the White House.
“Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal,” Katz wrote.
By 11p.m. that evening, the Times’ “Win the Presidency” meter gave Republican Donald Trump a 95 percent chance of defeating Clinton, with the meter’s red needle hovering near the words “very likely.”
The mainstream media did even worse than Clinton, missing their own field goal by an embarrassingly wide margin. They came to believe their own biased reporting and dishonest push polls.
They were mesmerized by the echo of their collective wisdom and found it irresistible. Who among the public could resist?
“Resistance is futile,” thought the Borg collective of the mainstream media. But resist the voters did.
The “Gray Lady” took Hillary’s loss badly. While the Clinton campaign loaded cases of unopened, celebratory champagne onto trucks for the trip back to the liquor store, the Times called Trump’s victory “a stunning culmination of an explosive, populist and polarizing campaign that took relentless aim at the institutions and long-held ideals of American democracy.”
Chief among those “institutions” is a biased press. And no one is more aware of their loosening grip on the popular imagination than the lame duck Obama Administration. According to the New Yorker magazine,
“What frustrated Obama and his staff was the knowledge that, in large measure, they were reaching their own people but no further. They spoke to the networks and major cable outlets, the major papers and the mainstream Web sites, and, in an attempt to find people ‘where they are,’ forums such as Bill Maher’s and Samantha Bee’s late-night cable shows … But they would never reach the collective readerships of Breitbart News, the Drudge Report, WND, Newsmax, InfoWars … not to mention the closed loop of peer-to-peer right-wing rumor-mongering.”
Those unreached readers were the folks Hillary Clinton tossed into her “basket of deplorables”: those who embrace the notion that government officials are servants and not rulers; the ones who believe they, not government bureaucrats, know best how to run their lives; those who embrace individual liberty over the constant and annoying nudges of authoritarian busybodies.
During his grand farewell tour in Europe, President Obama told America’s dejected media what he believes was behind the Trump victory.
According to Obama, we live “in an age where there’s so much active misinformation and it’s packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television. If everything seems to be the same and distinctions are made, then we won’t know what to protect.”
According to a Pew Research Center survey, nearly half of adult Americans get their news by way of Facebook.
Following the president’s lead, the New York Times and her imitators came up with a catchy phrase to describe information from news sites that are, well, not them: “fake news.”
Soon after, the New York Times reported that Google “would ban websites that peddle fake news from using its online advertising service. Hours later, Facebook, the social network, updated the language in its Facebook Audience Network policy, which already says it will not display ads in sites that show misleading or illegal content, to include fake news sites.”
Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook, donated $20 million to the failed Hillary Clinton campaign. Erick Schmidt, executive chairman at Alphabet, Google’s parent company, was a loyal Clinton soldier as well.
In an email released by WikiLeaks, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta recounts his meeting with Schmidt to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook:
“I met with Eric Schmidt tonight … he’s ready to fund, advise and recruit talent, etc. … Clearly wants to be head outside advisor.”
Internet headline aggregator Matt Drudge helped to break the Breitbart News story on White House intern Monica Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton’s sexual affair in January of 1998, which Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff later admitted his magazine suppressed for a year.
Six years later—and two months before the 2004 presidential election—CBS’s 60 Minutes used forged documents in a story claiming that in 1968 political influence helped President George W. Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam.
The documents also suggested Bush was absent without leave (AWOL) for a period of about a year.
Internet bloggers exposed the document fraud and heads rolled at the “Tiffany Network,” including that of anchorman Dan Rather.
Alternative media can’t be stopped or censored. In fact, resistance is quite fruitful.
Need proof? Members of the Tea Party, having grown tired of their message being censored on platforms like Facebook, created their own social networking site (HERE).
Others will follow as creative, free-thinking, freedom-loving Americans refuse to be assimilated into the left’s Borg collective.