Anyone who doubts that a strong leftward bias exists among the media should simply watch the almost hysterical campaign against Donald Trump unfold and then compare it to the ‘soft glove’ treatment Hillary Clinton is receiving.
On the one hand, much of the media is baying at the throat of Trump for not releasing his tax returns. In point of fact, Trump is the prime owner of Trump Enterprises which is comprised of 264 subsidiaries bearing Trump’s name. His tax returns, therefore, are not simple but likely measure in the hundreds (or thousands) of pages. Should he release them to the media, that would be the end of his relevant information-based campaign.
On the other hand, there is no question that Hillary Clinton received vast sums of money to speak to special-interest, Wall Street banking groups. Now, it takes virtually no imagination to conclude that those vast sums were paid for suggested favouritism toward that industry. (Clinton may be a fairly good speaker, but she is not worth those kinds of sums to discuss general politics.) One could easily suggest that what she told them was biased information in their favour — which would truly bear on her conduct as a future president if true.
The issue could be put to rest if she simply released the transcripts of those speeches, but she steadfastly refuses to permit their publication.
In point of fact, Trump’s tax return has little to do with how he would conduct himself as president, but Clinton’s refusal to release those potentially damning transcripts could be vital. And yet, does the media hound her constantly as they do Trump?
Of course not, and there you have the very definition of bias.
Leonard MelmanNanoose Bay