Undeniable New York Times Media Bias
I figured everyone was well aware of the obvious media bias that permeates all of the major media stations and newspapers. But I begin to wonder what other people were seeing who may not know where to look.
For instance, on Thursday October 28th, 2016 during the presidential election, WikiLeaks revealed more of Hillary Clinton’s staff emails. In this case there was some pretty damning news last night showing one of Bill Clinton‘s people who ran the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea Clinton felt that the various people connected to the Clintons were using the Clinton’s name in order 2 make money. She hired an outside law firm to audit some of the Clinton Foundation relationships and found out that yes, indeed there are many quid-pro-quo happening between the various individuals. She wrote an email two longtime associate Mr. Band confronting these money-making schemes.
On this note, I do need to give Chelsea Clinton credit, she seems to have more integrity than anyone of the Clintons or the Clinton’s staff. Anyways, long story short, Mr. Band had a very aggressive reply to Miss Chelsea Clinton. It went something like this:
“Mr. Band also described arranging tens of millions of dollars in income for Mr. Clinton in the form of lucrative speeches and consulting arrangements, some of them from foundation donors… ‘We have solicited and obtained, as appropriate, in-kind services for the president and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like,’ Mr. Band wrote.”
Throughout his reply Mr Band described some $116 million dollars that Bill Clinton had received through the Clinton foundation and various relationships. Additionally revealed in the WikiLeaks just a couple days before was the fact that Hillary Clinton had just participated in a scheme to get $12 million dollars as a quid pro quo for meeting with the king of Morocco. Since Hillary was just about to start her presidential campaign it was deemed better that she not participate and instead collected the $12 million dollars from the king of Morocco and sent Bill and Chelsea Clinton to the meeting.
So back to my original statement of the Undeniable New York Times Media Bias. I decided to go online and look at Friday mornings headlines for the New York Times. You can see in the diagram I put together below what I found. I will give you my interpretation point-by-point and you can make up your own mind of what you think on the accuracy of my judgment. I actually numbered each spot so you can see exactly what I am talking about on the New York Times Front Page.
New York Times Media Bias
1. In position number one the headline is emails show Chelsea Clinton‘s devotion and frustrations. It mentions in the preview her goal of protecting her father. It looks pretty noble right? (Dem+1) Buried it deep within the article, very deep, you find the quote that I put at the bottom of the diagram. So this incredibly huge negative information towards the Clinton campaign, Clinton foundation, and Bill Clinton was just a side note towards how Noble Chelsea Clinton is so devoted to helping her family. Kind of fishy to me. I think something this big actually deserves a headline. One thing I also noticed seemed kind of odd was this silohuete type image to the right that could resemble Chelsea, which was just an advertisement, but had this nice content saying “introducing watching, a website designed to help you find your next favorite TV show or movie.” (Dem+1) again.
2. Text you can see the second headline in number 2, “Clinton basks and Michelle Obama’s soaring popularity” and the description tells of Hillary and the first lady obviously delighting in singing each other’s praises. (Dem+1) Coincidentally the headlines right next to that political headline were nice as well. The headlines right next to that headline were under the smarter living category and said ” how music might improve your workouts.” Again something a little upbeat and positive. (Dem+1)
3. The third headline down the side of the New York Times was “Trump is abandoned by the big donors (even himself).” Seems kind of negative to me what do you think? (Trump -1) And of course they pointed out that Donald J Trump gave no cash to his campaign for three weeks in October. Of course they didn’t point out how much he gave in September or the fact that he’s put well over a hundred million dollars of his own money into the campaign while the Clintons have put in hundreds of millions of “other people’s money.” and at the very bottom of the description for that headline they put a little note there just for courtesy… it said “The upshot: Clinton leads by 7 in Pennsylvania poll.” (Dem+1) No mention that Donald happens to be ahead in Ohio by three or four points. And oddly enough the two articles headlines directly to the right of the Trump article are pretty negative for some odd reason. Their titles are ” Wisconsin student charged in assault on 5 women” (Trump -1) and in its description that talks of the person being charged with 14 felonies and 1 misdemeanor. Now I wonder if that would be a coincidence since just a few weeks ago the New York Times also brought forth about a dozen women who say they were sexually harassed by Donald Trump. Of course none of those allegations have been confirmed and many have already been debunked, but the NYT has never mentioned that. The second article headline is ” Wall Street Journal buyouts are papers latest bad news.” What do you think? Do you think they put more bad news right there next to Trump on purpose? (Trump -1)
4. But let’s not read too much into that, let’s go ahead and step down to number 4. What do you know? Another Trump headline. This Trump headline read “Some Trump voters warn of Revolution if Clinton wins.” Well what what do you know, another negative headline (Trump -1) and in the description it talks about these “frustrations will be forgotten if Mrs. Clinton wins.” (Dem+1) And let’s see what the article is directly next to the Trump article, the headline reads “Convicted for being gay, he wants apology, not pardon.”(Trump -1)
Let’s take a breather here and analyze what I see so far and you can tell me if I’m crazy. I see 2 articles on top. One glowing headline talking about Chelsea and how she stands up for her dad and her family (with the bad news deep inside the article of the big Clinton Foundation scheme that they don’t want the public to see). And a second article glowing Lee speaking of Hillary and Michelle Obama praising each other. How sweet and next to both these articles we have such a sweet news about music improving our workouts and helpful websites helping us find our favorite movies.
Meanwhile, directly underneath there are two very negative Trump headlines and in the description for both there is a positive Hillary Clinton lying. Oh, and by the way, next to both Trump articles are other headlines dealing with assaults on women, newspapers latest bad news, and people being convicted for being gay. To me the bias is obvious, the New York Times Love’s Hillary and hates Trump. They are not just reporting the news
anymore but they are trying to create a perception and shape an election. But wait I’ve only just begun.
5. The headlines to the opinion pages are also at the top of the New York Time, what we call above the fold. And what do we see here? “Blow: Trump’s lack of discipline and discernment” and another headline “Collins: Dark days of trump” also with a negative article above and below. (Trump -1)(Trump -1)
6. And right next to that we have op-ed contributors section. You can see an illustration 6 the next 2 headlines: “the great Democratic inversion” (Dem+1) and “the best way to save Obamacare.” (Dem+1) of course two things with a positive spin even trying to put Obamacare into a positive light after the news this week that Obamacare premiums will be rising anywhere from 25% to 116% in the next couple months.
7. And lastly we see an election forecast with Hillary Clinton having a 92% chance of winning and a nice little graphic to show exactly how badly she is beating him. (Dem+1)
Now at this point on my image that I created for you you will see a dark black line separating the top half of the paper from the bottom. Everything below the black line are various articles that I found further down throughout the front page. I’ll try to go quickly through those.
8. This article just talks about Trump and doesn’t have a headline about him but of course it talks about how representative Issa “finds his Embrace of Mr. Trump could cost him(Trump -1)– so now he’s embracing Mr. Obama.” (Dem+1) Again, another score for the Democrats and another negative for Trump.
So if you are keeping score, I AM, that is +10 for the Democrats and Hillary so far and -8 for Trump. But We’ve only just begun.
9. The number 9 headline is “Never Trump, but then what?” (Trump -1)
10. Another little section of politics under number 10 gives us the headlines “money flows down ballot as Donald Trump is a banded by big donors” and “Donald Trump campaign seeks voter suppression, report says, but it’s legal” and another campaign memo of “Chelsea’s frustration over hacked emails.” (Trump -1)(Trump -1)(Dem+1)
11. Number 11 talks about “vandalism of Donald Trump star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame” (Trump -1). Come on, isn’t there anything nice to say about Donald Trump?
12. The upshot section, number 12, headlines read “Hillary Clinton leads by 7 points” (Dem+1). Are you starting to see a trend here?
13. More from the opinion section, and to be fair this part actually refers back up to the same opinion section above but repeats the same headlines again. So they repeat these headlines “best way to save Obamacare,”(Dem+1) and “Governor Christie’s Shadow over Bridgegate” [and I’m going to give a (Trump -1) since Governor Christie has become a “big” target since he started campaigning for Donald Trump] and “Donald Trump’s lack of discipline and discernment” (Trump -1).
14. This one might just be me, but number 14 has the headline “the corrosive election and the new abnormal.” Now, it doesn’t say anything about Donald Trump there or the Democrats, but this tiny little picture of a man sitting could be mistaken for Donald Trump. In fact I had to zoom in the picture quite a bit to find out it wasn’t him. And if you dig a Little Deeper, when you follow the article to the right page, you’ll find out it goes into a long story involving the fact that Donald Trump said he would “wait and see what the election results were before he accepted a loss.” This is another thing that the media is making a huge deal over. Yet somehow they forget how Al Gore conceded the election then called back and said wait wait I don’t concede, then took the matter before The Supreme Court until we got to the point where we were counting the notorious hanging Chads. For those of you that remember that debacle we didn’t actually announce who the president actually was until I believe around December 13th, a month later. In fact Al Gore and John Kerry still don’t accept that loss. (Trump -1)
15. Now, number 15 is an anomaly. In fact I am surprised that we have anything that could actually sound even slightly negative towards Hillary Clinton. Buried down along the right corner of the front page is a tiny headline that says “Donations to Foundation Vexed Hillary Clinton’s age, emails show.” Holy Crap!! The New York Times does read WikiLeaks. (Dem-1)
So that’s it. That’s pretty much the entire front page of the New York Times for Friday morning October 28th, 2016. I am not sure what kind of score you have tallied up but right now I am looking at a score of:
All that news and they somehow smoothed past the big WikiLeaks news of the day, how Clinton’s longtime friend Mr. Band arranged tens of millions of dollars in income for Bill Clinton in the form of lucrative speeches, consulting arrangements, some of them directly from Foundation donors, how Mr. Band solicited services for
the president and his family for personal travel, Hospitality, vacations, and the like. That my friends is what we call quid-pro-quo! Or the nicey nice term the media has decided to coin it as “Pay-to-Play” so that it doesn’t have quite the legal ring. Throughout those Wikileaks Mr. Band mentioned at least $116 million dollars in bribes to Bill Clinton and the family.
Somehow this “news media Outlet” seems a lot less like media reporters and a lot more like a propaganda outlet for the Clinton machine.
Obviously I have a bias and an opinion here but I think it would be great if in the comments below you give me your comments and your opinion and tell me what you think…
Am I crazy or does Donald J Trump have a great big Target on his back while Hillary Clinton has already been hoisted up as a champion on the shoulders of an unfair and imbalanced media with the Undeniable New York Times Media Bias as just one example?