Instead of telling his audience that 11 Republicans splintered their electorate and still defeated a well-financed Democrat novice, Robert Costa @washingtonpost.com opened his article today by turning a Democrat loss into a Republican slight.
Costa began his piece: “Republicans avoided an embarrassing defeat in a House race in Atlanta’s conservative suburbs by forcing a runoff against Democrat Jon Ossoff, who captured the most votes with a groundswell of grass-roots activism and millions in donations fueled largely by antipathy to President Trump."
Whereas Ossoff earned less than 50 percent of the vote, the threshold needed to declare an outright victory, he must now face “Republican Karen Handel, the top GOP vote-getter in a special election to replace Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District.”
Costa then acknowledges that “Ossoff could find it difficult to sustain the momentum he witnessed this past week in a traditionally Republican district that has been in GOP hands since 1979. Although Handel had earned 19.7 percent of the vote with 88 percent of precincts reporting, in a runoff she is widely expected to rally Republican voters who had divided their votes among 11 GOP candidates in Tuesday’s race.”
Belittling Handel, Costa highlights that aside from name recognition from her long tenure in state politics, “she also benefited from $1.3 million in support from Ending Spending, a conservative advocacy group aligned with the billionaire Ricketts family.”
Then, about 60% into the column Costa finally reveals that political novice Ossa “who catapulted to national notice, raised more than $8 million and drew heavy support from prominent Democrats and liberal organizers. They saw his campaign, as well as a special House election last week in Kansas where a Democrat narrowly lost, as symbolic battlegrounds for their recovering party.”
Which means that, despite all the support from other well-known Democrats and professional organizers, along with six times the money, Ossa still couldn’t achieve 50% of the vote and will likely lose again to Handel in June.
Yet, from Costa’s perspective it’s Republicans who avoided “embarrassment,” although his preferred candidate resembled the repulsive kid whose parents hung a lamb chop around his neck to get the family dog to come anywhere near him.
Nonetheless, despite Costa’s upside down perspective of the Georgia House race, his slant on reportage melds perfectly with the MSM in general.
That can be seen in an article by Rich Noyes and Mike Ciandella @newsbusters.org/blogs, headed: “Honeymoon from Hell: The Liberal Media vs. President Trump.”
The column begins: “As President Trump approaches the end of his first 100 days in office, he has received by far the most hostile press treatment of any incoming American president, with the broadcast networks punishing him with coverage that has been 89% negative. The networks largely ignored important national priorities such as jobs and the fight against ISIS, in favor of a news agenda that has been dominated by anti-Trump controversies and which closely matches what would be expected from an opposition party.”
A comparison shows that Trump’s push to “invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.”
In contrast, eight years ago “the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration.”
“For this study, MRC analysts reviewed all of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening news coverage of Trump and his new administration from January 20 through April 9, including weekends.
"Coverage during those first 80 days was intense, as the networks churned out 869 stories about the new administration (737 full reports and 132 brief, anchor-read items), plus an additional 140 full reports focused on other topics but which also discussed the new administration.”
For purposes of developing attitudinal perspectives of the networks involved, MRC’s results showed that: “Five big topics accounted for roughly two-fifths (43%) of the whopping 1,900 minutes of total network airtime devoted to the Trump administration. But those five topics accounted for a much larger share (63%) of the negative coverage hurled at the administration, as the networks covered each with an overwhelmingly hostile (more than 90% negative) slant, which can be seen in the chart below:
After providing further supporting detail, the authors closed with the following three paragraphs knowledgeably and accurately summarizing MSM bias.
“The networks also broadcast dozens of stories that treated Obama and his family as pop culture celebrities. “From the moment the Obamas landed in Britain, hand in hand, many here were already star-struck,” NBC’s Dawna Friesen enthused on the April 1, 2009 Nightly News. Covering a European leaders summit a few days later, ABC’s David Muir warmly referred to Obama as “the cool kid in the class.”
“Needless to say, President Trump and his family have received no such positive reviews. Instead, the media’s reaction this President has been unremittingly hostile, with aggressively negative coverage of both the new administration’s policy agenda as well as his character.
“When the President shares the media’s liberal mindset, journalists are willing to be seen as cheerleaders, shaking their pom-poms on behalf of the White House. But when voters select a President who challenges the liberal establishment, those cheerleaders morph into unleashed pitbulls, ferociously attacking both the President and his agenda.”
However, what’s most remarkable about today’s topics, is that the voting public seems to be no longer willing to blindly accept the MSM or their leftist agenda. That can be seen in the results of the House seat contest in Georgia and the item below.
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.”
That’s been fluctuating recently between the high 40’s and 50% as it was on Monday.
Rasmussen itself is apparently finding fault with others in their business, noting today that: “The same pollsters who called the presidential election wrong last November show the president with a worse job approval rating than we do. We called it right in November, so you decide who’s got it right now.”
Following that came statistics showing: “Nearly half (46%) of all voters say Trump will hurt Republican candidates running for Congress this year. But 60% of GOP voters see the president as a boost to their candidates.”
All of which means that despite the full-time efforts of the MSM, along with sizable donor funding, Democrat candidates are still being found unattractive. And that’s because enough is now apparently enough for the majority of voters who instead of endless talk, now want delivery of promises made. Just like Trump is doing for them each and every day.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment