ZeroHedge.com<\/p>\n
Submitted by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n In a revealing statement that flew largely under the radar earlier this month, the mainstream media admitted it would never recover from its irresponsible and negligent coverage of the 2016 presidential election<\/strong>. A recent column<\/a> published in the New York Post<\/em> referred to the media\u2019s reporting as \u201cthe complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.<\/em>\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n In his article<\/a> for the Post<\/em>, Fox News<\/em> contributor Michael Goodwin discussed the media\u2019s pro-Clinton bias \u2013 one recognized by supporters of virtually every other presidential candidate, from Bernie Sanders<\/a>to Jill Stein<\/a> to Gary Johnson<\/a> and, of course, Donald Trump<\/a>. Even Americans who don\u2019t necessarily have a horse in the 2016 race notice<\/a>\u00a0the slant.<\/p>\n Indeed, he is correct in this regard. The Clinton machine has effectively infiltrated corporate media.<\/strong>Last year, the Intercept<\/em> reported<\/a> MSNBC<\/em> failed to disclose that multiple pundits who spoke favorably about Clinton were actually employees of a consulting firm hired by her campaign.<\/p>\n More recently, embarrassing DNC leaks released in July revealed<\/a> DNC officials attempted to craft narratives painting Sanders in a negative light to undermine his campaign. They also organized a secret fundraiser with the Washington Post<\/em> and were careful to keep it under the radar. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the now-disgraced former chairman of the DNC, along with one of her colleagues, personally contacted MSNBC<\/em> to complain when one of its anchors criticized Clinton and suggested she drop out. Per a \u201cdeal\u201d with the DNC, one POLITICO<\/em> writer sent an article critical of Clinton to the DNC for suggestions before he sent it to his editor<\/em>.<\/p>\n Though Goodwin has previously implied<\/a> he does not support the Republican nominee, he still argues\u201cAny reporter who agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate<\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n There is no question the mainstream media has sided with the political establishment in its decision to craft narratives<\/a> that paint Clinton as a competent leader who is the only option<\/a> in the face of a catastrophic Trump presidency<\/a>.<\/strong> Indeed, in spite of Clinton\u2019s lack of popularity among the general population, the media continues to suggest<\/a> she is the only thing standing between America and its descent into fascism.<\/p>\n While the degree of negative press Trump has received is undeniably staggering, Goodwin failed to recognize \u2014 at least in this article \u2014 that like Clinton, Trump is wildly unpopular and dangerous. Though mainstream media is undoubtedly fervent in their coverage of Trump\u2019s absurdity, it is arguably irresponsible not<\/em> to point out the gaping problems with his xenophobic, violent, non-factual rhetoric.<\/p>\n But therein lies the problem: rarely does the mainstream media devote as much time to questioning Hillary Clinton, her rhetoric, and her policies. As the Hill<\/em> noted<\/a> earlier this month:<\/p>\n As Politifact documented<\/a>, Clinton has lied on multiple occasions, and the media\u2019s lack of outrage and refusal to focus on her dishonesty lends credence to Goodwin\u2019s assertions.<\/strong><\/u><\/p>\n Goodwin is openly right-wing. He appears regularly on Fox News<\/em> and has previously asserted<\/a> President Obama is not doing enough to combat Islamic extremism. And though he is correct in pointing out the pro-Clinton bias, his employment at the New York Post<\/em> and ongoing appearances on Fox \u2014 two icons of mainstream media \u2014 obliterate any chance of his media criticisms being taken seriously.<\/p>\n The New York Post<\/em> has been owned by Rupert Murdoch\u2019s News Corp. since 1976. In that time, the Post<\/em>has developed a reputation for sensationalism\u00a0<\/a>and inaccurate reporting<\/a>. While they deserve mild credit for covering controversial issues like police brutality<\/a> and the secrecy and corruption<\/a>\u00a0surrounding the infamous 28-pages of the 9\/11 commission report, a long<\/a> line of\u00a0ethical<\/a> controversies mars theircredibility<\/a> \u2014 so much so that even a Fox News<\/em> anchor has questioned the paper\u2019s legitimacy.<\/p>\n Little needs to be said about Fox News<\/em>\u2019 out of touch<\/a>, delusional<\/a> take on the world, though it is worth noting that according to an analysis<\/a> by Politifact, 58 percent of Fox News\u2019 content is mostly false, false, or \u201cpants on fire.\u201d<\/p>\n The reputations of the New York Post <\/em>and Fox News<\/em> precede Goodwin\u2019s argument, no matter how true it may be that the media is in Hillary Clinton\u2019s pocket. What his assertion should<\/em> have contended is that American journalism was a lost cause long before the 2016 election \u2014 something Americans have increasingly and rightfully begun to\u00a0recognize<\/a>.<\/p>\n From the corporate media\u2019s flagrantly irresponsible coverage<\/a> of the Iraq War during the Bush years to the media\u2019s ongoing blackouts<\/a> of relevant news in favor of more superficial, inconsequential stories<\/a>, Goodwin\u2019s assertion that 2016 is the year American journalism died is as factual as the content churned out by Fox News.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n