By Darius Shahtahmasebi
Although the mainstream media bias in favor of Hillary Clinton is painstakingly obvious, the Clinton campaign has achieved new lows as media outlets have been forced to drop the “subtle” pro-Clinton propaganda they previously employed. Instead, many media outlets have come right out to openly support her.
This past week, the Washington Post and Foreign Policy both came out with uninformative articles supporting Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency. The lesson learned from these two publication’s endorsements is that there are only two reasons to vote for Clinton —and neither of them is valid:
1. Vote for Clinton due to a number of stretched lies and propagandized half-truths
2. Vote for Clinton to stop a President Trump from running the White House
Media Lies and Propagandized Half-Truths
Unsurprisingly, the Washington Post’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton is riddled with stretched lies, propaganda, and inaccuracies. According to the Washington Post, Clinton’s previously documented failures are actually beneficial to her role as future president. “Ms. Clinton’s career as a series of learning experiences that have prepared her well for such an environment,” they claim.
Citing Russia as an example, the Washington Post claims Clinton successfully reset relations with the global power before “Mr. Putin reasserted himself and Russia became more hostile.” Blaming tensions between the United States and Russia solely on Putin’s leadership without acknowledging Clinton’s direct role in this deterioration, nor the fact that a President Clinton is more than likely to lead us down a path to all-out nuclear war with Russia, is nothing but completely baseless propaganda. (Seriously, click the hyperlinks for yourself).
The Washington Post also argues that after becoming a senator, “colleagues in both parties found her to be businesslike, knowledgeable, intent on accomplishment, willing to work across the aisle and less focused than most on getting credit.” The article does not provide any source for these claims and somehow neglects to mention that people who have worked with Clinton directly experienced behavior wholly to the contrary. According to secret service agents who served her during her husband’s presidency, as identified by former agent Gary Byrne:
“One day, UD [Uniformed Division] officers met to review events at their respective posts. A bewildered new officer arrived. ‘Hey you’ll never believe it, but I passed the First lady and she told me to go to hell!’ A second young officer responded, ‘You think that’s bad? I passed her on the West Colonnade, and all I said was ‘Good morning, First Lady.’ She told me, ‘Go f— yourself.’”
Aside from the variety of paragraphs filled with phatic language (language that serves no real information-conveying function), the most disturbing and baseless claim made by the Post is that Clinton is a “voice for engagement on behalf of democracy, human rights and stability.”
Is she? Clinton’s pro-interventionist policies in Libya completely destabilized the African and Middle East region. The fact that she laughed hysterically after the Libyan leader was assassinated on the streets of Sirte does not at all suggest she cares remotely about human rights, rule of law, stability, democracy, or any of the values the Washington Post has attempted to attach to the Clinton name.
This is to say nothing of her refusal to put Nigerian terror group Boko Haram on the U.S. official terror list — before she made a propagandized effort to care about the terror group’s abduction of hundreds of school girls — suggests she has no real allegiance to human rights, democracy or stability.
The Washington Post somehow neglects to discuss all of these realities. Further, the Post’s reference to the Clinton Foundation being “actually” a charitable foundation suggests a clear lack of research on the part of this prominent publication.
The article concludes that “anyone who votes for her will be able to look back, four years from now, with pride in that decision.”
The Clinton vs. Trump Argument
Conversely, Foreign Policy magazine took a completely different approach to endorsing Clinton. On their Facebook page, the magazine announced that in the publication’s history, it has never once thrown its weight behind a particular candidate:
“In the nearly half-century history of Foreign Policy, the editors of this publication have never endorsed a candidate for political office. We cherish and fiercely protect this publication’s independence and its reputation for objectivity, and we deeply value our relationship with all of our readers, regardless of political orientation.”
Until now, of course. In their article, “Hillary Clinton For President of the United States,” the editors of the prominent magazine explain their rationale for endorsing Clinton in the upcoming election, and as will be seen, it, too, is a woefully inarticulate argument.
Unlike the Washington Post’s endorsement, nine out of the eleven paragraphs outlining this argument are dedicated solely to presenting the dangers of a Donald Trump presidency. Notable inclusions are that Trump is inexperienced; he displays vile behaviour toward women; his is ignorant about the most basic international affairs; he has promoted “a tyrant and menace like Putin”; he is willing to use nuclear weapons; he has repeatedly insulted Mexico and Mexico’s government (apparently, one should only insult the despots in Russia, never those in Mexico); he has made exclusionary immigration proposals; his stance on climate change is unacceptable; he has been repudiated by various Republican experts, to name but a few reasons.
The remaining two paragraphs talk briefly about Hillary Clinton, stating she is “one of the best qualified candidates this country has produced since World War II.” The article doesn’t actually provide any real evidence for this claim; only one of the paragraphs actually talks about her achievements (even calling them achievements is a bit of a stretch).
Essentially, the crux of Foreign Policy’s argument is Trump bad, Clinton good.
The fact that a publication felt the need to highlight all the reasons why Trump is a bad candidate in the first place says something about the contemptible nature of the current elections. Their article is the equivalent of writing an article on why Stalin is a worse human being than Hitler – completely unnecessary considering the evidence speaks for itself.
If Clinton is such a promising candidate — even one of the “best qualified”— why can’t Foreign Policy actually outline this in a detailed argument? Apparently, two paragraphs are all one needs, with no real evidence and no real evaluation of her previous record working within the highest ranks of government.
The reason for this is clear: the Washington Post — which previously held a secret fundraiser for the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, as revealed by Wikileaks — attempted to present a reasoned argument for her endorsement and was forced to rely on a warped interpretation of her career’s achievements and failures.
Further, none of the aforementioned articles adequately assess any of the worries that have plagued those who are critical of a Clinton presidency — mainly her mental state, her integrity following a number of email leaks, her ability to destroy countries that previously enjoyed a high standard of living, and the likelihood of her leading us down a path to war with Russia.
We can be left only with the conclusion that there are no valid reasons to support Clinton outside of the “Trump bad, Clinton good” paradigm. In order to perpetuate the myth that not voting for one is an endorsement of the other, the mainstream media has ultimately sunk to new lows in a last minute bid to endorse Clinton to ensure her path to the presidency is secure.
Considering it recently came to light that Trump was actually a pawn in the Clinton campaign’s strategy from the beginning, the fact the media still feels the need to resort to all-out endorsements without providing detailed reasons should tell one of how promising a candidate she actually is.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).
Contributed by The Anti-Media of theantimedia.org.
The “Anti” in our name does not mean we are against the media, we are simply against the current mainstream paradigm. The current media, influenced by the industrial complex, is a top-down authoritarian system of distribution—the opposite of what Anti-Media aims to be. At Anti-Media, we want to offer a new paradigm—a bottom-up approach for real and diverse reporting. We seek to establish a space where the people are the journalists and a venue where independent journalism moves forward on a larger and more truthful scale.