Are we being sandbagged by the media?

Trump press conference

What if the major media players (who are known to favor democrats) are trying to influence who becomes the Republic Party candidate to face Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election?

Suppose they believe that Hillary will have an easier time beating Donald Trump than Ted Cruz and are “helping” him move towards the nomination by providing free air time.

It’s pretty obvious that Trump has been the beneficiary of almost three times as much airtime as either Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz – he’s become ubiquitous – he’s everywhere – and it’s free.


Virtually any time Trump wants to monopolize political discourse, all he has to do is call a press conference and he’ll get a massive in-kind contribution of free airtime by the national media and his words will be carried live by every television station.

Candidates Media-Time

Ask yourself whether you think that the media’s lopsided coverage of Donald Trump has the Republican Party’s best interest in mind? Could it be possible that they are assisting him because they perceive that he would be the weakest candidate to challenge Hillary Clinton?

The latest Real Clear Politics general election polls show that Hillary would beat Trump by 8 points while she would lose to Cruz by 1 point. Of course, it’s early and there’s no telling where the polls will be in even a week from now, but at the present, Hillary polls better against Trump than any of the other still active Republican candidates.

This could be why Ted Cruz has accused the national media of a “curious” reluctance to delve very deeply into Trump’s long track record in finance and business deals. Cruz is positing that they’re deliberately ignoring a number of potential “bombshells” until Trump wins the nomination and then, they’ll let loose the hounds of hell. Cruz says that reporters have told him that the media organizations have gathered opposition research materials in order to expose Donald Trump “when the time is right.” That sounds rather ominous.

Why would the national media be so silent about Trump’s tax returns (so far), or about that “off the record” meeting with the New York Times editorial board where he supposedly softened his stance on immigration. Aren’t those issues worth investigating? Or could it be that they prefer to “save” that ammunition until it’ll benefit Hillary’s campaign? And those are only two examples of issues that could be exploited to damage Trump’s chances in the general election.

It’s happened before; remember how John McCain was the media’s fair-haired boy up until he became the Republican nominee? Then the media jumped on him with both feet, publishing shabby smear pieces about sexual affairs and bashing him about not releasing medical records.

I know that this smacks of some sort of conspiracy by the media, but it doesn’t require cooperation between media entities to do what comes naturally – hold their fire until they see the whites of Trump’s eyes.


Categories: Political


6 replies

  1. A look at the headlines bears this out as true – even on Breitbart and Fox. Up until Cruz’ recent surge and Rubio’s downward slide, all you have to do is open up their home pages and count the posts about him and compare to the Cruz & Rubio posts.

    As if the media didn’t chase him like teenagers following a rock star, Trump, with a snap of his fingers, calls a press conference to dispute or deny every single accusation thrown his way.

    Maybe they’re afraid of what he can do to their careers, or maybe they are indeed attempting to help Hillary – it’s hard to say. One look at their history over the past 7+ years tells you exactly whose side they’ve been on all this time and it’s doubtful they’ve changed much.


  2. *NO SHIT ! *


  3. It appears that we have been sandbagged but by the Cruz campaign. Cruz has his birth records sealed as the article explains. And the author of this article is no screw ball. He has lots of credentials behind him.

    I don’t believe for one moment that the media is pushing Trump. Everything I hear from the media is so biased against Trump. For example the issue of Trump and David Dukes which he disavowed immediately during a press conference with Chris Christie standing behind him. But the media had to blow this up with no basis whatsoever claiming Trump was for the KKK and David Dukes. This went on for a week. And it was a huge lie propagated by the media.

    Also during his press conferences which he is willing to do as opposed by the other candidates, the questions he receives are all biased against him. You would see this if you ever listened to one of these pressers.


    • Pepp, I’m familiar with that article, ‘Nox posted it on N&F a couple of weeks ago and I researched it then, just be aware that it is not entirely accurate.

      First, Ted did not have his records sealed as was implied. The way that statement is worded is specifically meant to imply that Cruz went to some lengths to legally protect his records from release. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said this in response to FOIA requests for Cruz’s records:

      “Please be advised that DHS regulations require, in the case of third party information requests, a statement from the individual verifying his or her identity and certifying that individual’s agreement that records concerning him or her may be accessed, analyzed and released to a third party.”

      So, contrary to the accusation that Ted has “sealed his records,” while they ARE sealed, they are because of government requirements, NOT because Cruz did as Obama did, and legally hid them from public access. Now it’s true that he could release them at any time, but how is that any different from Trump not releasing his tax records? Is it because they both have things to hide?

      And then the author dismisses the Harvard Law Review assessment of Cruz’s eligibility by saying that it was an “opinion letter from his Harvard friends.”

      But what about the opinion from the Congressional Research Service? In case you aren’t familiar with the CRS, they are a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress and work exclusively for the United States Congress. They provide policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.

      The CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan.
      The statement that covers Cruz’s specific situation concludes:
      “The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicates that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as native born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

      The author mentions that “It is possible for a child to be born outside of the United States, and still acquire legal U.S. citizenship at birth through a parent, according to U.S. Naturalization codes pertaining to ‘Citizenship at birth for children born outside the U.S. and its territories.”

      According to 8 U.S.C. §1401, the class of people considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth” includes the following:
      (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

      So my friend, you’ll pardon me if I don’t put too much weight in Mr. Williams opinion. And so far, the vast majority of legal “experts” who have offered an opinion have come down on the position that Cruz IS eligible.

      Pepp, you are an old friend and you’re entitled to your opinion and to support whomever you choose, just believe that I don’t support Ted Cruz blindly, I have done my homework.
      Your friend, Garnet92.


  4. There’s a high likelihood that at least some of this is going on. Perhaps the animus is even more against Cruz, who would be the beneficiary should they release potentially harmful stories against Trump as they arise. Anything that hurts Trump, or puts him of message, helps his competitors in a relative fashion.

    Remember, the media “like” Trump! He gives them ratings! Likewise they prefer the photogenic Rubio to the other candidates. What they don’t like is someone who really is “clean”, for the political profession. Someone who is locked in on principles, and is unwilling to participate in “the game” which makes for good media theater. So, for now, Trump & Rubio get the smooth & easy treatment. Rubio is a “winner” for finishing third in Iowa, but Cruz must have cheated, though his ground operation had been lauded beforehand. It’s there to see pretty clearly, if you just look for it.

    In the end, their partisan preferences will indeed continue to color their coverage, like the ongoing disparagement in naming sides of the abortion debate. The media will give preference to the Dems, because that’s the team that 90% of them are admittedly on.

    Honest, unbiased news reporting is, and always has been, a myth. The purpose of freedom of the press is not so one outlet will the tell the Pravdaesque whole truth, but by having a multiplicity of outlets, that the truth CAN be gleaned.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: