aside Dear Media Elite, You Owe The American Public An Apology, Not Excuses

Related image
“We the people”

Dear Media Elite, No matter how you try to excuse and justify your actions, you acted in concert with Russian agents. With your assistance, the Russians successfully undermined the 2016 presidential elections.

“We the people” will never be able to know for sure what the outcome of the elections would have been without your complicity with Russia’s plans to sow discord among the American peoples. Maybe the results would have been the same as today, but maybe not. The point is that we will never know with certainty because of the FBI’s intercession within less than 2 weeks from election day; and Russia’s meddling magnified by the media’s attention. Image result for photos of peoples shopping holidays

Yes, the democratic presidential candidate , Hillary Clinton made critical tactical errors and the republican Presidential-elect Donald Trump’s message seems to have resonated better with a key segment of voters. But, the media elite along with the FBI Director James Comey’s last minute October surprise letter to the U.S. congress about newly discovered emails regarding Mrs. Clinton, have robbed Americans of an untainted election process, when both institutions had the power to prevent this. You all just forgot about us, “we the people.”

by Bob Gorrell 11/14/2016

How many of the establishment media reporters emulated the following example as detailed in the below NY Times article?

“Some of the (hacked democratic campaign related emails by Russian agents)) documents were embarrassing — one noted that one of the candidates  was caught on a C-Span feed picking his earwax and seemingly eating it” — but much of what was made public was already known, said Aminda Marques Gonzalez, the executive editor of The Miami Herald. For that reason, she said, the newspaper published just two articles, in August, about the hacked emails pertaining to that race. One of the articles noted in the first sentence that the documents appeared to come from “an anonymous hacker believed to have connections with the Russian government. She said, “I feel comfortable we gave it the appropriate attention in terms of what it warranted.”Image result for photos of peoples shopping holidays

On 12/16/16 the NY Times published an opinion piece about how, “Editors Defend Coverage of Stolen Emails After News of Russian Hacks,” by Sydney Ember:

“When WikiLeaks and other websites published troves of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the final months of the presidential election, the American news media enthusiastically seized on the documents to illuminate the inner workings of a political party and its standard-bearer.”

“But as more information emerges about the extent of Russia’s involvement in the hacking, news organizations are reassessing the journalistic challenges involved in relying on stolen documents. While the Obama administration had said in the weeks before the election that the Kremlin had directed the attacks, intelligence agencies now believe that Russia may have interfered in the campaign with the goal of promoting the candidacy of Donald J. Trump.”

“In a deeply reported story on the Russian cyberattacks, The NY Times wrote this week that news organizations, including The Times, had become “a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence” by basing so many stories on the hacked emails. It was an unusually blunt assessment of the role news organizations played in disseminating stolen information that may have shaped public opinion heading into the election.”Image result for photos of peoples shopping holidays

“Many top editors say that stolen documents that are deemed newsworthy are fair game for coverage, but that the potential motives…must be made clear to readers…with appropriate context provided. given the information available.”

“Although this context is new, the general principle, I think, isn’t,” said David Lauter, the Washington bureau chief for The Los Angeles Times. “The fact that it’s coming from an unsavory source doesn’t mean that the information isn’t accurate.”(A foreign country bent on creating havoc is not just any unsavory source.)

“Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, said he did not regret the publication’s coverage of the hacked emails.”

“I get the argument that the standards should be different if the stuff is stolen and that should influence the decision,’’ he said in an interview. “But in the end, I think that we have an obligation to report what we can about important people and important events. There’s just no question that the email exchanges inside the Democratic Party were newsworthy.”

“Mr. Baquet said that journalists must give readers as much context as possible about the nature of stolen material and the potential motivations behind its release. And he pointed out that assessing information is part of the journalistic process every day, in ways big and small.”Image result for PHOTOS OF RECENT PROTESTS V TRUMP

“The Washington Post examined the issue of using hacked material in its own article on Wednesday.” “What if we don’t immediately know where the emails came from?” the article asked. “Do we ignore hacked emails until we can determine their origins? Do we ignore them completely, regardless of origin?”

“The information about Russia’s role in hacking Democratic Party systems has prompted a renewed debate over the matter, as journalists face the role the news media may have played in supporting Russia’s aims. At a morning news meeting at The New York Times on Thursday, there was a wide-ranging discussion about the propriety of reporting on stolen emails.”Related image

“But reporters and editors also brushed off the criticism that the media had somehow been complicit in aiding Russia. “My default position is democracy works best when voters have as much information as possible about the candidates and their campaigns,” Mr. Lauter of The Los Angeles Times said. “And that information often comes from rival campaigns, from old enemies, from all sorts of people who have motives that you might look at and say, ‘that’s unsavory.”

“It’s hard for me to accept the argument that our role is to hide information that voters might find probative because we don’t like the source,” he added.”

“Not everyone shares this view. Critics,( the American public in an election year) including officials from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, argue that the news media should have delved deeper into the story behind the story: the source of the hacks.”Related image

“This was stolen material,’’ Jennifer Palmieri, who served as communications director for the Clinton campaign, said in an interview. “By virtue of using them, you are allowing yourself to be used by Russia and WikiLeaks for their own purposes.”

I and most Americans happen to agree with Ms. Palmieri.


Paul North



    • Dear Voicesfromabox,

      Welcome!! Before Donald Trump won which most Americans did not believe would happen, we used to think we would never vote for Bexit or a President Rodrigo Duterte. We will be paying a price for our foolishness.
      I will be honored to checkut your website.

      Thanks for stopping by, Gronda

      Liked by 1 person

        • Dear Voicesfromsbox,

          Thanks for the saying which I won’t translate but I’m guessing that it is an old Filipino saying, About how one should never presume anything, otherwise he/she will end up looking foolish.

          Again, thanks for stopping by, Gronda

          Liked by 1 person

  1. Gronda, to your point, there is a fairness doctrine that was missed. We have leaked emails that the press and major opponent’s team is allowed to read on a daily basis. I want people to think of their own email history, then think of people who have corresponded with you by email. Think of the times when a colleague, client or someone close included you on an email that was highly inflammatory as they thought it was funny. Or, maybe they wanted to take childish or hurtful action against someone who slighted you or them. These emails may have made you uncomfortable, but you did not want to hurt their feelings, so you laughed it off or said something only mildly dismissive.

    Now, you run for President and every word is scrutinized. What reporters found interesting was the significant majority of emails were mundane operational stuff. One reporter said she found more respect for HRC by reading her emails. But, of course there were a few uncomfortable ones in Podesta’s and the more in the DNC’s emails.

    I go back to my assertion, the far more interesting emails would be Trump’s and the RNC’s. The RNC would have daily emails on how to deal with the latest Trump inane or vulgar statement. And, Trump’s team would likely not be much better and maybe worse.

    When Trump discussed how rigged things were, he was attempting to mask the rigged side in his favor. Every time the HRC campaign discussed negatives about him, he pulled a tactic from the narcissist’s playbook and fed it back toward his opponent. It was HRC who started the Obama birther issue, for example, which was absolutely ludicrous. The press should have been blunt with both of them, but especially Trump who has lapped any field on lying – “if you were me, would you believe what you just said?”

    Thanks again for your post, Keith

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Keith,

      You are so right.

      The media elite did not care about fairness, context, thoroughness of research etc. Frankly, the editors, reporters and the bottom line did better with DT in the headlines.

      I have been frustrated with that phenomenon of so-called balance. The media focused for months on the story of HRC’S email handling while she was secretary of state, which was way overblown out of proportion to the misdeed which was never in a criminal category. Compare this to DT’s misdeeds and character flaws which are numerous and much more grievous. But if one followed the news cycle, this was not the impression that was portrayed.

      The press is just one more institution that has failed the American public.

      Ciao, Gronda


  2. this election has a bright star on the tree….America no longer trusts the media which is a good thing. i recently sent out an email to friends with over 90 links to Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative, Politics, Economics, History, Culture… subject line….Turn Off Cable News and Learn To Read….learn critical thinking folks and not from an institution of supposedly Higher Learning….considering what is in the streets Higher Learning is a monumental failure but i knew that my daughter followed her passion, Masters in Art and working at a horse stables….the other 3 graduated high school and hold great positions in business

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Ataraxiabellatrix,

      Welcome!! You are so right. There is no short cut. If one really wants to get a true picture of any given situation, one needs to research and read a myriad of material with various perspectives.

      When Folks start blogging by doing this background work, it doesn’t take long to figure out that most major media outlets do miss the mark on occasions.

      Thank you for stopping by, Gronda


Comments are closed.