Mainstream media goes after Trump supporters

The message is clear: If you associate with Trump, you and your family will be humiliated

By Ken Kurson, The Observer, Sept. 1, 2016

Unknown-2It’s no secret that the mainstream media has decided that the threat presented by a possible Donald Trump presidency is so grave that it has suspended even the illusion of objectivity.

Writing in The New York Times, media columnist Jim Rutenberg granted permission to his fellow journalists “to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career.”

The Observer and others have detailed the ways in which traditional media companies and even tech companies have colluded to maximize negative coverage of Trump and minimize negative coverage of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. 

That opposition has extended into new and uncharted territory. In the coordinated effort to stop a dangerous candidate from obtaining, to use Rutenberg’s breathless description, “control of the United States nuclear codes,” the mainstream media has taken not just to bashing Trump but to extracting a price even from those who support him.

There are a hundred examples, but here are just a few headlines that tell the story:

Daily Beast: Trump’s Doctor ‘Overmedicated’ Patients Who Died in His Care
Washington Post: The contractor that designs Ivanka Trump’s clothes does not offer a single day of paid maternity leave
New York Times: Peter Thiel’s Embrace of Trump Has Silicon Valley Squirming

The message is clear: If you associate with Trump, we will rummage through your past. The attacks on Trump supporters extend even beyond Trump relatives to include the relatives of supporters.

As for The Washington Post story, the message was equally clear. While children of presidential candidates have long been considered off limits by the mainstream media, the Post clearly smelled danger in the crossover appeal of a successful working mother.

Ivanka Trump runs a company that is not only among the 10 percent to provide paid maternity leave, but also offers unlimited vacation and sick days and flexible work schedules. So the Post attacked a company that Ivanka’s company does business with, only they implied that Ivanka was responsible for that company’s business practices.

The Post later attached an editor’s note and clarified the story to “indicate that Ivanka Trump has no direct managerial role in G-III Apparel Group,” but the damage had been done and the misleading headline remains to this day. Plus, there’s the original URL of the story, which is important in search engine optimization. It has not been corrected and still gives the false implication that Ivanka herself is not providing paid maternity leave.

Then there’s the Peter Thiel story. His actions in supporting Trump supposedly have his industry peers “squirming,” according to The New York Times. Yet Clinton supporters who represent industries in which she is unpopular are portrayed as principled and loyal Democrats.

Where are the mainstream investigations of Hillary’s doctors? Or the business practices of Chelsea Clinton? 

The attacks on Trump supporters extend even beyond Trump relatives to include the relatives of supporters. Buzzfeed did a whole story on whether Josh Kushner’s business would be hurt by the fact that—-can you follow this?—-his brother’s wife’s father is the presidential candidate.

The Observer itself provides another example. Our traffic and users have grown more than five times since January 2013, from 1.3 million unique users to 6 million. And yet, from the time this campaign took shape, our documented-to-death Trump connection has been revealed in the way the Observer itself has been covered.

Politico wrote about us, “The paper’s editorials, which had largely ceased having influence…” I showed the reporter data proving that many more people read our editorials today than read them and I asked him to explain how he reached the conclusion that they had “largely ceased having influence.”

He told me, “My editor wrote that line.” He said he’d get back to me if he got an answer. He never did. Esquire‘s hit piece on Jared Kushner called the Observer “a once venerable newspaper” without even pretending to offer an explanation of what made it venerable in the past or why it’s no longer so, despite the increased revenue, readership and staff.

There’s another tactic employed by the mainstream media that’s inversely related to punishing Trump supporters—-rewarding Hillary supporters. Not just any Hillary supporters, but those brave Republicans who are putting country ahead of party by supporting Clinton.

What's your opinion?