Media Politics

Why the Liberal Media Bias may be the Gravest Threat we Face

During the many days since Hillary’s Benghazi squirming, I have yet to hear a backlash from the media’s whitewashing of her performance.  This is scary since the main stream completely trashed truthful reporting with their “nothing new to report” headlines.

Before getting into this modern day version of what formally was a “free press,” I would just ask why has this media insult gone unanswered?  Have we become so neutered in our thinking or fearful with our actions and commentary that we now accept such nonsense?  After all, our country was founded on and still requires an active “we the people.”

Now onto this journalistic disgrace.  Contrary to the official stance, Hillary’s Benghazi testimony did reveal a bombshell, or as the media likes to reference, a “smoking gun.”

Briefly, Hillary’s private and subsequently more honest explanation of the Benghazi 9/11 battle, to both her daughter on the night of, and while the attack was still ongoing, and also to Egyptian Prime minister on the following afternoon produced two instances in which her explanation was in direct opposition to what she, Susan Rice and President Obama would continue to voice in public.

This was a shocking piece of discovery.  So, how is it that our media, in unison nation wide, chose to report that “nothing new” was revealed from the hearings?

Hidden motives abound, especially when another Presidential contest  is gearing up.  The mere fact that we are still investigating what directly preceded our 2012 contest suggests skullduggery of some sort.

Now connect these newly discovered Clinton’s messages with this obvious cover up attempt.  Never before, to my recollection, has our “liberal press” resorted to such a blatant fabrication.  What has been unveiled is nothing more than an intentional and purposeful lie.  Given it’s original guise and success, it seems that the media’s strategy has opted for continuing this worthy deceit.  Or might this be too easy of an assumption?

media biasConsider the different set of circumstances with the 2012 re-election.  Today, Obama is officially a “lame duck” leader.  With respect to our people and our nation, his campaigning has finally run its course.  Now, consider the meager democrat prospects, especially if Hillary’s past catches up, compared to the line up of hungry republican conservatives awaiting to restructure Obama’s rule.  The stakes are huge.

More to the point, visualize the future of our “liberal press.”  Already, the vice grip of televised news reporting from three major networks has blossomed into a competitive news stampede.  Likewise, the printed version faces near extinction since those still loyal to the morning deliveries are mostly identified generationally.  The reality of these changing times cannot go unnoticed,

Since this “liberal press” has invested much of its reputation into the democrat camp, the future offers uncertainty from a changing industry but more so if the democrats lose the White House.  Drastic times call for equal measures.  Could publishers now theorize that; why not take advantage of our present state of authority in order to elect what may well be the final piece of the American “take down’ puzzle?

While this consideration might be difficult and wildly conspiratorial, this departure from slants to out right lying may be just what is required, especially since Clinton’s veneer was unmasked.  Also, to be so close yet remain hesitant is not an option when facing such a wild assortment of Republican alternatives; any of which could monkey wrench this current socialist trend.

If this approach seems a bit drastic, consider that on my street alone, from twenty plus residences, five, maybe six papers are still being delivered.  This former mainstay is facing a bleak future and editorial boards across the country know the numbers.

Also to ponder are the time factors regarding the industry’s remaining viability and the time gap before the public recognizes that the “liberal slant” has given way to falsehood reporting.  What’s the difference, maybe a year or two?  Losing two or so years with dwindling subscriptions/advertising revenues should be doable when gaming America’s possible capitulation from capitalism to complete socialism.

The magnitude of the current political circumstances, highlighted by another election offering the same Benghazi denials, will no doubt produce an uncomfortable level of public doubt and scrutiny.  In addition, if the “main stream” decision to insert false reporting and bold lies prevails, then we are truly witnessing the intentional abandonment of journalism’s creed for honesty and truth.  Ask yourself: all this for just another Clinton in the White House or is socialism already demanding its due?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Jim Bowman

Retired, grandfather, 71 years old, Vietnam vet, author of This Roar of Ours, over 25 year of published op/eds.

Don't Miss Out!!

Get your daily dose of Eagle Rising by entering your email address below.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become an insider.

Send this to friend