The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Wednesday, November 04, 2015

Mute and Sightless

The recent CNBC debate has precipitated much commentary about the obvious and blatant Left-leaning bias of the main stream media. In fact, even some members of the Left-leaning media expressed concern. The questions that were asked of GOP candidates were snarky in tone and in substance, but in a way, that's not the most egregious form of bias.  GOP candidate, Marco Rubio, characterized it this way: “The Democrats have the ultimate Super PAC: It’s called the mainstream media.”

The Democrats trained hamsters in the media have shown and continue to show a complete lack of curiosity when it comes to dishonesty, ethical lapses, extreme political proposals, or otherwise unsavory behavior of Democrat candidates for president and for the sitting president as well (think: lack of curiosity about Barack Obama's background and history, his associations with unsavory characters, his grades at Harvard, his speech for palestinian activist Rashid Kaleedy, etc., etc.). This lack of curiosity is evidenced by few, if any, investigative reports that would pop up instantly if a GOP candidate was the focus.

Let's consider a hypothetical GOP candidate—intelligent and well versed in the issues, but prone to a continuing stream of ethical lapses and conflicts the interest. Our GOP candidate has set up a family foundation and seems to have inter-mixed his work in government with fundraising for the foundation. Worse, the hypothetical candidate's wife got speaking engagements that grossed over $40 million while the GOP candidate held government office.

As part of his work in government, our GOP candidate helped negotiate a deal in which a Russian company purchased 20 percent of U.S. uranium production. Coincident with the deal, the candidate's wife was given a speaking fee of $500,000 by supporters of the Russian company, and the GOP candidate's foundation was given a donation of $2.5 million.

The GOP candidate expressed continuing concern about the plight of Haitian people and set up a charitable trust to help them. At the same time, his wife's brother was appointed to a paying advisory position of a U.S. based gold-mining company that just happened to get a contract in Haiti. The brother had no experience in mining.

Finally, a stream of continuing allegations of favors tied to donations to the candidate's foundation emerged while the GOP candidate destroyed any trace of communication that might shed additional light on these activities.

Given that the target of the media's investigation is a GOP candidate, you can bet your life that the media would take a hard look at these curious events, follow the money intently, hound the candidate and his associates for answers, and produce a continuing stream of prime-time investigative reports. The drumbeat would continue until: (1) the candidate pulled out of the race, or (2) produced compelling evidence that there was no wrongdoing.
Here's the thing. Each of the situations described above actually happened, but they involve not a GOP candidate but the Democrat candidate—Hillary Rodham Clinton. They are described in more detail by controversial writer Edward Klein. But instead of investigating these allegations, the media's trained hamsters work hard to discredit those that make them. Like any good Democrat super-PAC, the media works hard to protect its Dem candidate. Instead of putting Hillary Clinton, her foundation, and her dealings as Secretary of State under a microscope, they conveniently look the other way—mute and sightless.