If you have a brain, that is. From the Los Angeles Times this morning, a perfect sample of how the 2016 Presidential campaign is going to be covered by our liberal press:
"In the span of a few days, the campaigns of Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton have each stumbled over flaws in the candidates that could mar the presidency of whichever one wins in November.
For Trump, the publication over the Fourth of July weekend of a tweet using anti-Semitic imagery underscored his willingness to use bigoted characterizations to advance his political career. His statements since, including denying the tweet’s connections to a white supremacist website, highlighted his repeated and documented use of falsehoods to push his case.
For Clinton, the blunt critique from FBI Director James B. Comey, who on Tuesday called her recklessly sloppy when it came to classified emails she handled as secretary of State..."
One candidate is an antisemitic, violent racist who is consciously, over and over again, soliciting the support of white supremacists, and the other one did something inappropriate with a few e-mails.
Just the same, you see.
And as I have pointed out before, the Los Angeles Times is one of the most reasonable mainstream press outlets in the country. This is as good as it's going to get in terms of fair press coverage. I shudder to think what most of the rest of the country is going to be getting in the way of news, between now and November.
Trump yesterday went "off script" again, and delivered a racist, hate filled rant soaked in violence, to an audience that ate it up and wanted more. The guy has recently been revealed to have an entire business career seemingly based on cheating other people out of their money. He admires people like Kim Jong Un and Saddam Hussein for their willingness to ignore common humanity and kill anyone who gets in their way. His "campaign manager," formerly employed by Vladimir Putin, will now be getting security briefings. He can't even get most of his own party leaders to appear at his convention. And yet the press is going to do everything it can get away with, to see that he has the best shot possible of ending up as President. And don't be surprised if it works.
Later Today: From our nation's "newspaper of record," the New York Times:
"Clinton’s Email Was Probably Hacked, Experts Say
It is unlikely that any intruders left signs of their entry, making it impossible to know for certain if the email was compromised."
"Probably" hacked. It is "unlikely," however that there is any sign that this happened, and it is "impossible" for us to ever know. I.e. there is not one shred of evidence that it actually happened.
But it is still well within the rules of American mainstream journalism to report this utterly unsubstantiated smear as very likely. Don't hold your breath, however, if you are ever expecting to read in the New York Times that Donald Trump is "probably" a violent, racist bully. No, that would not be responsible at all.