Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Spirit
That they twist everything into the worse possible light and attack with the most acidic words they can mange?
I mean here a few recent bits from the BBC, that was in overdrive mode before the election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06ybngz
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38057104
I've yet to see a article on there with a positive thing to say on there. Most of its negative and some of it's really toxic and nasty. Meanwhile Clinton always gets treated as angel who needs to be defended. |
The medias where biased toward Trump. They tried to treat this election as a horse race between Trump and Clinton for clics and subscriptions. Hillary's email stuff, as an example, wasn't worth more than a week of headlines. What she did was wrong, but it still was an honest mistake, with no intend to profit from breaking the rules, and no harm was done. The bare handfull of confidential emails was trivial stuff that was classed as such after she had already received and stored them. but did you see the medias announce en-masse that the circus they kept on-going for months was a storm in a teacup? Trump, on the other hand, said and did many things that should have outright disqualified him, but it was more interesting to treat him like a living joke and keep the outrageous headlines going.
Decent journalists would have dug up Trump's history of racism and exposed it for the world to see. Only WaPo did some articles on that.
Quote:
|
When people are calling you evil incarnate constantly, I think you have the right to be a little disdainful towards them.
|
Whining and ranting that some news network used photos of him where his double-chin is showing isn't being disdainful.