Trump Vs. the Activist Media: Newt Lays a Verbal Smackdown on Megyn Kelly

14731251_10205385959927806_8491863673114560831_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I remember when the Fox News Channel first burst on the scene on October 7, 1996, setting the Liberal Establishment and the Main Stream Media on their heels, by offering “Fair and Balanced” News Reporting.

Nowadays, it appears that at least one of their Evening “Anchors” has joined the ranks of the Main Stream Media, and has gone from reporting the news, to attempting to shape it.

Breitbart.com reports that

Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took on host Megyn Kelly for what Gingrich described to be a fascination with sex and that she didn’t care about policy.

Exchange as follows:

NEWT GINGRICH: Let me point out something to you: The three major networks spent 23 minutes attacking Donald Trump that night, and 57 seconds on Hillary Clinton’s secret speeches. You don’t think that is a scale of bias worthy of Pravda?

(CROSSTALK)

MEGYN KELLY: If Trump is a sexual predator, that is–

GINGRICH: He’s not a sexual predator. You can’t say that. You could not defend that statement.

 
KELLY: I have not taken a position on it.

GINGRICH: I’m sick and tired of people like you using inflammatory language that is not true.

KELLY: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, you have no idea whether it is true or not. What we know–

GINGRICH: Neither do you.

KELLY: I’m not taking a position on it.

GINGRICH: Yes you are. When you used the words, you took a position. It is very unfair of you to do that, Megyn.

KELLY: Incorrect.

GINGRICH: That is exactly the bias people are upset by.

KELLY: I think that your defensiveness on this speaks volumes, sir.

GINGRICH: Let me suggest to you —

KELLY: No let me make my point. What I said if if Trump is a sexual predator, than it is a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying he liked to grab women by the genitals, and kiss them against their will. Then we saw 10 women come forward after he denied it at a debate … He denies it all, which is his right. We don’t know what the truth is. My point to you is, as a media story, we don’t get to say the 10 women are liars. We have to cover that story.

GINGRICH: Sure, so it took 23 minutes for the networks to cover that story. And Hillary Clinton had a secret speech in Brazil to a bank that pays her $225,000 saying that her dream is an open border where 600 million people could come to America, that is not worth covering?

Do you want me to go back to the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy.

KELLY: Me, really?

GINGRICH: That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.

KELLY: You know what, Mr. Speaker? I’m not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office.

GINGRICH: And therefore, we’re going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing, because you are worried about a sexual predator. Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

KELLY: We on ‘The Kelly File’ have covered that story as well, sir.

GINGRICH: I want to hear you say the word. Say “Bill Clinton is a sexual predator.” I dare you. Say “Bill Clinton, sexual predator.”

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: Mr. Speaker, we have covered that. We on “The Kelly File” have covered the Bill Clinton story as well. We’ve hosted Kathleen Willey. But he is not on the ticket.
Kelly ended the segment by telling Gingrich he needed to take his “anger issues” and “spend some time working on them.”

Ms. Kelly is not alone in her quest to bring down the Republican Candidate for President.

According to newsbusters.org,

In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.

For this study, the MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). The networks devoted 1,191 minutes to the presidential campaign during this period, or nearly 29 percent of all news coverage.

Our measure of campaign spin was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of the campaign trail. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump and bashing Clinton, and vice versa), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story. Such statements may have been presented as quotes from non-partisan talking heads such as experts or voters, quotes from partisans who broke ranks (Republicans attacking Trump or Democrats criticizing Clinton), or opinionated statements from the reporter themselves.

Additionally, we separated personal evaluations of each candidate from statements about their prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.). While such comments can have an effect on voters (creating a bandwagon effect for those seen as winning, or demoralizing the supports of those portrayed as losing), they are not “good press” or “bad press” as understood by media scholars as far back as Michael Robinson’s groundbreaking research on the 1980 presidential campaign.

The results show neither candidate was celebrated by the media (as Obama was in 2008), but network reporters went out of their way to hammer Trump day after day, while Clinton was largely out of their line of fire.

Our analysts found 184 opinionated statements about Hillary Clinton, split between 39 positive statements (21%) vs. 145 negative (79%). Those same broadcasts included more than three times as many opinionated statements about Trump, 91 percent of which (623) were negative vs. just nine percent positive (63).

Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage.

This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate. Reporters also bluntly called out Trump for lying in his public remarks in a way they never did with Clinton, despite her own robust record of false statements.

As for those “horse race” assessments that we excluded from our “good press/bad press” measure, those were decidedly anti-Trump as well. Out of 569 such statements about the health or prospects of Trump’s campaign, 85% (486) were negative, vs. 15% (83) that were positive. For Clinton, the spin was reversed: out of 432 assessments of her status in the race, 62% (268) were positive, vs. just 38% (164) that were negative.

Thus, judging by their own coverage, network reporters have consistently painted Clinton as the most likely to win, but they have inexplicably spent most of their time trying to dismantle the underdog in the race while giving the frontrunner much lighter scrutiny.

Overall, the networks spent about 40 percent more airtime covering Trump (785 minutes) than they did on Clinton (478 minutes). Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received just over nine minutes of coverage, while Green candidate Jill Stein and independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin each received less than one minute of airtime.

As noted above, more than half of Trump’s coverage (440 minutes, or 56%) focused on the various controversies surrounding his candidacy, while only about 38 percent of Clinton’s airtime was spent on her controversies (185 minutes).By far, the top topic since the party conventions has been the issue of Donald Trump’s treatment of women, especially the 2005 Access Hollywood tape (which received nearly 50 minutes of evening news coverage) and the unproven allegations from several women that he engaged in inappropriate conduct in the past (26 minutes).

Add it all up, and Trump’s alleged sexist behavior or rhetoric has totaled 102 minutes of news coverage since the conventions. In contrast, references to Bill Clinton’s past treatment of women, and Hillary Clinton’s role in covering up her husband’s wrongdoing, amounted to less than seven minutes of coverage during this same period, a roughly 15-to-1 disparity.

Other Trump controversies were given robust coverage: the issue of his tax returns (33 minutes), his concern that the November election could be “rigged” (27 minutes), and suggestions that Trump and his aides are too close to Putin’s Russia (22 minutes).

In contrast, controversies involving Hillary Clinton received far less attention. Her “basket of deplorables” comment received just seven minutes of total coverage, while barely two minutes (134 seconds) was spent talking about her handling of the 2012 attack in Benghazi when she was Secretary of State.

Bill Clinton’s crack that ObamaCare was a “crazy system” was limited to just 140 seconds of evening news coverage, even though it signaled the kind of intra-party split that would surely have received far more coverage if it had been a Republican vs. a Republican.

Just last week, a Quinnipiac poll found that more than half of all voters (55%) thought the media’s coverage had been biased against Trump. With coverage like this, the question is, what are the other 45 percent thinking?

Evidently, they’re not paying attention.

For years, the Main Stream Media has been in bed with corrupt politicians and those who walk roam the Halls of Power with impunity (Mr. Soros to the Courtesy Desk, please.)

While touting objectivity, they have often fallen way short of that goal.

The Media really came into its own during the 80’s, with the advent of Cable Television, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the ascension and election of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The advocacy of all things Liberal by every Cable News Channel, became very apparent, as they attacked the greatest president of this generation, mercilessly, giving no quarter.

I believe that Reagan’s election was a wake up call to the MSM. They realized that, if left to their own devices, the American Public would elect a Conservative as President, every time. And, they just couldn’t have that. They were already in too deep to their Democratic, Progressive Masters.

So, America’s Media forsook their objectivity, choosing to help to shape current events, instead of just reporting on them, in an effort to produce outcomes which would be most beneficial to the Progressive Cause.

The Fox News Channel filled a void that had been created by the Main Stream Media’s own biased hubris.

Later, after propping up Barack Hussein Obama and getting him re-elected, this hubris gave the Main Stream Media an exaggerated sense of self-importance, as to their role in our society.

Their Achilles’ Heel , the before-mentioned hubris, blinded them to the potential of the New Media…and, that has been their undoing.

As has been affirmed to me lately, during my surfing of the web, including Facebook Political Pages and websites, Modern American Liberals, including those in the Main Stream Media, constantly live in a state of denial.

They respond as if you have told them that you shot Ol’ Yeller, when you inform them that Liberalism is still the minority political belief in America, even (and especially) after the 7 1/2 year reign of King Barack The First.

This salient fact explains why CNN and MSNBC constantly trail Fox News in the television ratings polls.

It also explains their ongoing massive propping up through the use of blatant propaganda of the Presidential Campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Just like the cockamamie idea to allow biological men in women’s public restrooms, the idea of allowing a morally and ethically challenged congenital liar with obvious serious health issues, who is as far removed philosophically from the overwhelming majority of Americans, that she might as well be the President of China, XI Jinping’s Handmaiden, makes average Americas out here in America’s Heartland want to hurl.

Which, by the way, is quite evident when you compare actual images of the size of Donald J. Trump’s overflowing Campaign Rallies , numbering in the thousands, compared to the under-attended ones of Hillary Clinton, which are lucky to draw one hundred.

Principled reporters, such as the late Andrew Breitbart and Michelle Malkin, now working for Conservative Review, turned up the heat on the MSM, by providing an alternative source through which Americans can receive news, unfiltered by those in the Halls of Power.

Unfortunately for the MSM , as the last several months have shown, and as I have documented, Americans have become our own “reporters” thanks to the “New Media”. Americans are now living in a  time when the Main Stream Media’s blatant propaganda is no longer believed at face value, as the evidence which refutes it is appearing in the live videos and photographs being shared on Facebook and other Social Media.

And, like the little Dutch Boy, the MSM does not know which hole to plug, in the leaking dam, first.

In their frenzied desperate attempt to stop what now appears (judging from the size of his Campaign Rallies and the information gleaned from Early Voting across the country) to be the inevitability of a Trump Victory in November, the Main Stream Media has chosen to verify blatantly false Liberal Opinions as being “Facts”.

Megyn Kelly, since the Political Ascension of Donald J. Trump, has chosen to eschew the “Fair and Balanced” Reporting that vaulted Fox to the top of the Cable News Ratings, instead, opting to join the baying “newshounds” of the Main Stream Media in their quest to bring down the Republican Candidate by any means necessary.

Unfortunately for Ms. Kelly, her strategy has backfired on her miserably, costing her rating points and allowing Sean Hannity to take over the lead among Fox News’ Evening Programs.

Just like the Internet Trolls, who invade Facebook Political Pages and Political Websites, in order to disrupt conversation and call attention to themselves, the MSM, including Ms. Kelly as well, through the creation of their own facts, have permanently damaged their own credibility, quite probably beyond all repair.

Because, to put it quite simply, once you torque off the American Public, you never get them back.

Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

Until He Comes,

KJ 

 

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: