The Road to the US Elections: Media Coverage Bias

Once again early voting in the US has already begun for the Presidential Election and there are a number of critical developments that are taking place. Thus far, we’ve looked at Trump racism claims and the response from African American voters, we’ve looked at the ethical conduct in campaigns, the contrast between the two vice president picks, the Christian issues that are also on the ballot, and media engagement. However, as far as media engagement is concerned, we’ve predominantly looked at the Harris-Walz campaign’s failure to promulgate policy, while prioritising ill-considered media appearances, and being shown bias by the likes of CBS and CNN. We have to discuss the use of especially the left wing media to institute a coverage bias of the candidates in the election, and the media’s pitiful attempts at agenda setting, particularly through comparing Trump to Hitler.
THERE IS AN OBVIOUS MEDIA BIAS PROBLEM WHEN COVERING U.S. PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTIONS
There is an obvious media bias problem when it comes to election coverage for the US presidential elections. In fact, it’s common to hear Americans complain about the media throughout presidential elections. Partisans tend to believe that the press is biassed against their side, leading people to believe the media can affect how people vote. However, this problem is actually not applicable to all partisans, in fact it tends to disproportionately affect Republican candidates and supporters.
Now, even John Stossel, who we just watched, would have to clarify exactly what he means by Trump lies. Trump rallies have a significant number of attendees. We’ve seen the bird’s eye or drone footage of his rallies. People genuinely come to these events – in fact, he recently filled Madison Square Garden. But, it is worth zooming in on this issue, because it is another manifestation of the media bias and war we see manifest in light of the US presidential elections. Not only has Kamala Harris tried to minimise the great impact of Trump’s campaign by claiming people leave early during the presidential debate, but Trump has actually had to address this issue in engagements with reporters as well.
THE MEDIA BIAS IS BROADLY AGAINST FIGURES THAT ARE ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT
But, the reason that this problem, disproportionately affects Republicans is because it is generally a media bias that is launched against anti-establishment figures and organisations. This is why Trump and his supporters are often so targeted by left-wing media. This is also why figures like Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, are targeted by left wing media. This is a man who delivered remarks refuting the nobility of the WEF at their gathering in Davos. He is also a leader who opposed the UN’s Agenda 2030, and it’s the organisation’s present trajectory. So,of course, the left-wing media call him a right wing fascist.
SIMILARLY, THE LEFT WING MEDIA HAS WEAPONSIDED THE “FAR-RIGHT” LABEL
But, the critique that the left-wing media has launched against Javier Melei does bring to the fore their use of agenda setting to vilify anti-establishment and anti-big government figures like him and Trump – or even just conservatives. You’d recall that the far-right label was especially weaponised in Europe when there was a surge in the popularity of right-wing or conservative parties. First, while you will find pockets of far-right thinking in Europe’s political system, the notion that new and emerging political parties on the right are generally “far-right” is simply false. For example, if you go to the webpage of one of the major emerging political groups that is supposed to be part of the “far-right surge,” the European Conservatives and Reformists, you are greeted not by neo-Nazi slogans, but by commitments to “safeguarding citizens and borders,” “respecting the rights and sovereignty of member States,” “protecting the global environment at a cost we can afford,” and “improving the union’s efficiency and effectiveness”.
If you also peruse the website of the Brothers of Italy (Fratelli d’Italia), the political party associated with the supposedly “far-right” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, in search of reactionary and extremist ideas, you will be deeply disappointed. The website displays a fairly humdrum list of policies to promote economic growth, a safer Europe, a better health system, policies to support families and boost the birth rate, opposition to bio-surveillance (“green pass”), and the need to combat illegal immigration.
For example, a translation of one paragraph from the Brothers of Italy’s European electoral platform, concerning immigration simply reads: “It must be Europe that decides who enters its territory and not criminal organisations or external actors interested in using migratory flows as a weapon to destabilise governments. Immigration must be framed within a context of legality and addressed in a structural manner. Saving lives is a duty, as is protecting those entitled to asylum, but the model favoured by the left—characterised by indiscriminate acceptance and never-implemented redistributions (of migrants)—has proven to be a failure.” (end quote). In fact, kindly have a listen to Professor Ryszard Legutko’s remarks from last year, who leading the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), lambasted the EU legislature for what he called “shameless partisanship” – essentially offering a criticism of the left and liberal agenda. And he does this WITHOUT advocating for the lawlessness and institutional destruction that is associated with the far right.
And based on the very ideas that some of the so-called right parties stand for, we might infer that anyone who describes these sorts of policies as “far-right” is simply determined to discredit their political adversaries by any means available. And yet this sort of lazy, dishonest, and demonising treatment of the new right in Europe, which mostly ignores the actual electoral platforms of new-right parties, is now standard fare in mainstream Western media. This, therefore, tells us that the “far right” label is actually a polarisation tactic!
While the term “far-right” should be reserved for political groups that oppose constitutionalism, are rabidly racist, or want to institute an authoritarian state akin to fascist Italy or Nazi Germany, the term has been degenerated by the left wing media into a cheap label used to discredit political conservatives. Liberals are incredibly aware of the powerful messaging that comes with comparing conservatives to figures, parties or policies that were notorious for human rights violations and crimes against humanity in the past.
This comparison tends to immediately invoke fear and distrust to a great extent – not because the conservative parties warranted it, but because of how bad the figures or parties they are being compared to are. This comparison basically casts a cloud of suspicion and distrust on conservative parties despite what they actually stand for. An example of this is the fear mongering that launched the protests in cities across France against what was claimed to be the” far-right National Rally” ahead of the elections for the French parliament. Those protests occurred on the guise of protecting democracy against so-called far-right Nazi’s, and not on the factual consideration of what the right wing parties stood for. Realy, this “far-right” label is nothing more than election manipulation through left wing media bias agenda setting.
REFUTING THE ASSOCIATION OF TRUMP WITH HITLER AND THE 1939 NAZI RALLY
So, with this discussion on the weaponisation of the “far-right” label in mind, we then have to talk about how the left-wing media has continued to weaponise it against Trump during this election period, by comparing him to Hitler. This has happened for some time: Kamala Harris’s hunch lately has been to attack Trump and call him a fascist. But, this recently took a new turn after the Trump rally in Madison Square Garden. Basically, thousands of people from around the New York area and other parts of the country went to Madison Square Garden in New York City on Sunday afternoon for former President Donald Trump’s campaign rally. At the rally, Trump vowed to win New York, saying it would be an “honour” to win his home state. This was the underlying message with the campaign rally being held in this venue, also considering that, once again, this is Trump’s home state. HOWEVER, this was not the message that the left-wing media took away. Instead, they saw a Nazi-rally like gathering, similar to the one.
At this point, I genuinely think the left wind media has departments hard at work looking for abstract comparisons between Trump and Hitler. In fact, if they even come across a rumour that Hitler liked to pair blue suits with a red tie, they will have a field day with that story. But, while there is a somewhat jarring and comical aspect to this, because it truly is ridiculous, there are direct refutations we need make.
First, if the left wing claims that using the same venue as Nazi’s years ago (despite the venue being a renowned venue used for literally multiple purposes) is synonymous to being a Nazi or Nazi sympathiser, then they have to reconcile this claim with the fact that Democrats and some of their leading figures ALSO had rallies and programmes at Madison Square Garden. For instance, in 1892 Democratic National Convention met in Chicago and nominated Grover Cleveland and he accepted his nomination at Madison Square Garden. Herbert Hoover also delivered his final campaign speech for the 1932 election at the MSG.
In 1936, Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his last campaign speech there. Furthermore, before the 1939 Nazi Rally, on March 15, 1937, a massive “Boycott Nazi Germany” rally was held in the Garden, sponsored by the American Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee, where John L. Lewis of the Congress of Industrial Organizations and New York City mayor Fiorello LaGuardia were among the speakers. And so, not only have Demcorats used the venue for rallies and political events, even anti-Nazi events where held at the MSG. So, either it is a venue used for diverse purposes, including Trump’s rally, or even the Democrats and political organisation that have used the MSG – including anti-Nazi government organisations – are all Nazi sympathisers; which is obviously a ridiculous slippery-slope reasoning to make.
But, because truth also vindicates those who stand for it, in an interesting development, Holocaust survivor Jerry Wartski was in attendance at Trump’s Madison Square Garden “Nazi rally.” Warstki recently said that Kamala Harris comparing Trump to Hitler was the “worst thing” he has heard in his 75 years of living in the US.
Secondly, and still refuting the Trump-Hitler stretch of a comparison, it is important to note that the devil is also revealed to us in the scriptures as an accuser. And part of what him and his cohorts do is to accuse others of their evil intentions and plans. I say this to say that the empirical evidence suggests that Kamala Harris and the democratic party establishment are the real fascist. They have a conditional relationship with inalienable rights, where they think only people who agree with them should enjoy all liberties including the freedom to speak freely. They are the ones who want Trump supporters to be placed in “re-education camps”; and recently, the Biden-Harris Administration sent a directive to the Pentagon, changing a law, to make it LEGAL to use LETHAL FORCE on American citizens, on American soil! Thai is classic fascist and Hitler-esque conduct. And so, once again, wh at they accuse Trump of aspiring towards is actually what they are doing in the present!
WHERE THE HITLER COMPARISON COMES FROM, AND WHY IT IS MISGUIDED
Still refuting the left’s comparison of Trump to Hitler, let’s further address where this comparison comes from, and why it is deeply misguided. Essentially, it comes from Trump’s opposition to the present state of illegal immigration and the Southern Border Crisis – tied to the Great Replacement Agenda. The great replacement theory in the United States and other Western countries whose populations are mostly caucasian, is often dismissed as a far-right conspiracy theory alleging that left-leaning domestic or international elites are attempting to replace caucasian citizens with nonwhite immigrants.
But, part of the reason for this reductionist interpretation of the great replacement agenda is how it is linked to Hitler and Nazi ideals. Hitler created a FALSE problem in Germany, in which he claimed that Jews wanted to eliminate the German population, and further replace the European population. HOWEVER, those who make the claim that the great replacement agenda is inherently the same as Hitler’s interpretations or articulations of it, are not adequately considering that Hitler LIED to the German society; he fabricated that problem of a Jewish takeover to legitimate a centralisation of power and implement a Nazi government. To Hitler, his articulation of the great replacement theory was a means to an evil end (being the holocaust); and it was not a sincere prescription of an observable problem in society.
And so, let me state categorically that to claim that the great replacement theory is a Nazi-inspired or white supremasist theory is a reductionist and incorrect understanding of the great replacement theory. And just because it was manipulated by the likes of Hitler does not make it inherently wrong or bad, in the same way that money is not an inherent evil because people use it for evil agendas. Furthermore, the great replacement theory is not a mere far right or white supremesist theory; it is even NOT primarily exclusive to the white race or predominantly caucasian nations. At its core, the great replacement theory problematises the deliberate supplanting of an indigenous demographic, to the extent that those who are indigenous of legal citizens of a country are surpassed by those who are illegal, and easier to control because they are at the mercy of the government that brought them in. It is, therefore, acceptable to recognise that left-wing governments and establishments are engaged in the great replacement agenda without being a Nazi-sympathiser – the two are not the same.
THE LEFT-WING MEDIA IS A CHORUS OF PUPPETS
But, as the left wing media continues to expose their bias, people are waking up to their nefarious agenda. In fact, part of what exposed the lies from the left-wing media is that they are not even that creative. They are all given the same script, because they capitalise on repetition. They did this with covid case statistics; and they do it again with Trump attacks.