WAPO'S 20-REPORTER INVESTIGATION OF TRUMP -- WHY NOT CLINTON
MEDIA BIAS AT IT'S WORST – Washington Post Investigates Trump But Ignores Obvious Malpractice By Hillary Clinton (past and present)
So, The Washington Post assigns 20 reporters to dig up information (dirt) about Donald Trump. I anxiously await reports on Trump's negatives but I won't expect to see anything positive, although considerable information is available on Trump's philanthropic activities and other positive attributes. One must compare WAPO's efforts to define Trump for what they think he might be with their efforts to avoid defining Hillary Clinton for what she clearly is and what she represents.
Controversy, evidence of corruption, dishonesty, obfuscation and more have shrouded Clinton like a dense fog for her entire presence in both public and private life. It is entirely legitimate to declare that Hillary Clinton epitomizes the cultural revolution's (sub-cultural in fact) abrogation of absolutes of morals and ethics with reliance on whatever can be deemed legal. The current controversy over how she performed her requirements as Secretary of State, the server-email case, the Benghazi disaster, and more should have more focused reporting from media. Her the disastrous performance in the Egypt and Libya debacles aren't even reported. While she spoke and acted ignorantly about the spread of democracy by the so-called "Arab-spring" and supported the nonsensical decision of overthrowing Mubarak in Egypt, media have no interest in reporting her ineptitude on these issues.
In this blog, I wrote of the disastrous effects to be expected from actions in Libya, Syria and especially Egypt. If I could anticipate the end results, why should the Secretary Of State, and the president as well, not be expected to understand? Perhaps their plan was to effect the disaster. I even wrote that the Muslim Brotherhood would, in all probability, win control of Egypt, and only the military could stop it. That's exactly what happened. Were Clinton, Clapper and Obama ignorant? Or?
Hillary Clinton's poor performance, her ineptitude, is profound and obvious. But she gets a pass from media and a majority of the American people. Would the people act differently if the media exercised their obligations better? It's doubtful we will know the answer.
I've often spoken, and written, that we will never get to the bottom of the Clinton corruption until an honest investigative reporter gets on the case as Woodward and Bernstein did with Watergate. Is honest investigative reporting now an oxymoron? The WAPO may have a chance to prove it is not, but will they?
I am not writing this as a fan of Trump. I am writing as one who laments the loss of intellectual integrity, the increase in bias of the media and, in general, the societal decadence that now defines us. The media are complicit in all of these American Conditions.
So WAPO, if you are going to “dig into Trump's life,” do the same for Clinton. You are obligated to do so! Oh, while you're trying to do your job correctly, you might examine Bernie Sanders' employment and his qualifications, lack of, to be elected to the most important job in the world.