Mollie Hemingway: Yes, the Media Are Uninterested in Policy, and Are Only Interested in Sex and Scandal. Look At This Year's Election Coverage, For the Love of Pete.

Mollie Hemingway was bothered by MeAgain Kelly's faux outrage at Gingrinch's (accurate) statement that she's "fascinated by sex" and not interested in policy.

Hemingway lays this charge against the entire media, and notes -- and this was something I completely forgot about -- that after the Chris Wallace debate, in which actual issues were discussed in a debate for the first time in any debate, the media immediately blew that off (and also ignored Trump's solid performance) to focus on two sex/scandal related items:

1. That Trump said "What a nasty woman" after Hillary insulted him with a shit-eating grin on her fat, alcohol-soaked face.

2. That Trump refused to accept the results of the election in all hypothetical circumstances.

Chief among the offenders on this? MeAgain Kelly. After I finished watching the debate, waiting to hear actual discussion of the policy issues finally brought up in a debate, the lightweight MeAgain immediately began pounding the drum that the only two things said in the debate of any consequence or public interest was "nasty woman" and Trump's refusal to agree in advance to accept (without caveat) the results of the election.

So the super policy-oriented wonk once again had the opportunity to do what she pretends to do -- talk about policy -- and once again decided to go with the #HotTake, Twitter-friendly, outrage-potential Scandal! storylines.

This got me to thinking: The media -- not just the Queen Bey of Cable Newsreaders Megyn Kelly -- has covered this entire election in terms of scandal. Occasionally (grudgingly) Hillary's, and mostly Trump's.

We have not talked about issues at all.

And you know why that is, of course.

Because the Hillary Clinton campaign has decided that the issues cut against her, and she's decided to make the election exclusively a referendum on Trump.

All three of her debate performances -- with the partial exception of the Wallace debate, because Wallace permitted it less -- have been singularly focused on attack lines against Trump.

And the media never objected to this. They never offered up the criticism, "Ms. Clinton did not bother to announce her agenda or defend her resume, instead focusing singlemindedly on a memorized oral-recitation oppo dump on her rival."

Consider this: If the roles were reversed -- if it were a Republican Party currently holding the White House, and the Republican nominee had a poor record of her own, and a worse record of the current occupant of the White House to defend -- and that Republican candidate decided to ignore all policy issues and all talk about actual results to deliver a tabloidy oppo dump on her opponent at every appearance --

Would the media join this crusade and amplify it? Or would it start chattering incessantly about the "relentlessly negative, personal, and empty campaign" of the Republican candidate?

Elections are about what the media decides what they're about -- and the Democrat party decides for the media what they'll decide it's about.

In 2006, the Democrats decided the campaign was about a "Culture of Corruption," and the media dutifully parroted this theme.

In 2008, the Democrats decided the campaign was about youth, hope, optimism, and "change," and the media carried this water, or this Pepsi commercial of an "agenda."

In 2012, the Democrats decided the election was about the #WarOnWomen. For this one, former Clinton media-massaging operative George Stephanopolous actually agreed to launch the first strike.

Now, in 2016 -- rather than talking about the five wars we're in and how badly we're faring in all of them, or the 1% "growth" economy (where 2.5-3% is needed just to keep pace with population expansion),and the rigging of the FBI itself, and Obamacare blowing up like a Samsung battery made entirely of Space-Age Kerosene, and the murderers' row at the VA, and the graft and corruption, and on and on and on -- Hillary has decided that the only issue in this campaign is Trump's Moral Failings, and wouldn't you know it, the media has agreed.

Only this time, the "conservative" media has agreed as well, and isn't even bothering to talk about other issues.

Isn't it funny that every campaign is fought on the precise battlefield the Democrats have adjudged to be most advantageous for them, and every campaign cycle, the media conducts an encircling action around the Republican to guarantee he can only fight on that unfavorable field.

See Also: Suzanne Venker of PJ Media argues the inarguable -- that MeAgain Kelly, when it comes to any issue regarding gender, has a pervasive, obvious, and near-religious political bias.

Megyn Kelly tries hard to project a “fair and balanced” persona, and in general does a decent job. But when it comes to any issue involving gender or gender politics, she is hopelessly and deeply biased. That’s when her unprofessionalism jumps off the screen. It always reminds me of Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Hey, I keep saying that.

The dustup between Kelly and Gingrich wasn't about Gingrich’s "anger issues," as Kelly said, nor was it about media bias per se. It was about feminist bias. Feminist bias is an arm of liberal bias. It's the same idea, but it is specific to gender issues.

Any feminist with clout is part of the feminist elite. This group's entire worldview--about men, sex, work, marriage, motherhood and politics--is fueled by feminist dogma, and they're convinced their beliefs aren't up for debate.

Even in defending her bias, she admits to "being fascinated with the protection of women." Not people, not citizens. Not even children.

Women exclusively.

No wonder this lightweight is such a soft touch for Hillary's "historic" candidacy.

She probably bought tickets to the first three showings of Lady Ghostbusters and actually bothered using one of them.

posted by Ace at 05:07 PM

| Access Comments