Ken Kurson, Observer, September 1, 2016

It is no secret that the mainstream media has decided that the threat presented by a possible Donald Trump presidency is so grave that it has suspended even the illusion of objectivity. Writing in The New York Times, media columnist Jim Rutenberg granted permission to his fellow journalists “to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career.”

The Observer and others have detailed the ways in which traditional media companies and even tech companies have colluded to maximize negative coverage of Trump and minimize negative coverage of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. But it doesn’t end there. As Rutenberg described, many journalists feel the need to “move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.”

That opposition has extended into new and uncharted territory. In the coordinated effort to stop a dangerous candidate from obtaining, to use Rutenberg’s breathless description of the stakes, “control of the United States nuclear codes,” the mainstream media has taken not just to bashing Trump but to extracting a price even from those who support him.

There are a hundred examples, but here are just a few headlines that tell the story:

Daily Beast: “Trump’s Doctor ‘Overmedicated’ Patients Who Died in His Care”

Washington Post: “The contractor that designs Ivanka Trump’s clothes does not offer a single day of paid maternity leave”

New York Times: “Peter Thiel’s Embrace of Trump Has Silicon Valley Squirming”

{snip} The message is clear: If you associate with Trump, we will rummage through your past.

As for The Washington Post story, the message was equally clear. While children of presidential candidates have long been considered off limits by the mainstream media, the Post clearly smelled danger in the crossover appeal of a successful, presentable working mother. {snip}

So the Post attacked a company that Ivanka’s company does business with, only they implied that Ivanka was responsible for that company’s business practices.

{snip}

Where are the mainstream investigations of Hillary’s doctors? Or the business practices of Chelsea Clinton?

{snip}

The attacks on Trump supporters extend even beyond Trump relatives to include, bizarrely, the relatives of supporters. Buzzfeed did a whole story on whether Josh Kushner’s business would be hurt by the fact that–can you follow this?–his brother’s wife’s father is the presidential candidate.

{snip}

The message from the MSM is clear: Support Donald Trump, and you–and maybe even your family–will be ridiculed, investigated and ignored.

{snip}

There’s another tactic employed by the mainstream media that’s inversely related to punishing Trump supporters–rewarding Hillary supporters. Not just any Hillary supporters, but those brave Republicans who are putting country ahead of party by supporting Clinton.

Search for “Republicans back Hillary” in Google and you get “There are now dozens of big-name Republicans supporting Hillary” (Washington Post), “The Republicans Who Support Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump” (The Atlantic), “Which Republicans Are Against Donald Trump? A Cheat Sheet (also The Atlantic), “At Least 110 Republican Leaders Won’t Vote for Donald Trump. Here’s When They Reached Their Breaking Point.” (New York Times), “Here are the Republicans Voting for Hillary Clinton Over Donald” (Time), and “The Biggest GOP Names Backing Hillary Clinton–So Far (The Daily Beast).

Enter “Democrats back Trump” and you get a story from The Hill from January and a Toledo Blade story.

The simple explanation would be that tons of Republicans back Hillary while few Democrats back Trump. But that narrative defies the reality of a Republican primary that drew record numbers of new GOP registrants and set a new record for votes cast, unlike the Democratic contest. And with the candidates roughly tied in the polls (the LA Times, for example, has Trump up by three points), there’s no way a “wave” of Republican Trump rejecters cannot be equaled by roughly the same number of Democratic Hillary rejecters. Unless the polling is drastically undercounting Hillary supporters (most think it’s more likely to be undercounting Trump voters, who have been shamed out of telling a pollster they support such a “dangerous” candidate), there have to be at least as many Trump Democrats as there are Hillary Republicans. But the media isn’t interested in finding them.

What’s even more surprising than the media suddenly cheering someone like former Bush aide Paul Wolfowitz, who was universally loathed by the MSM up until the moment he announced his support for Hillary, has been the way the press issues valentines to Republicans no one has never heard of. How did Maria Comella, a press aide to Chris Christie, merit 1,200 words and a “First on CNN” feature on air simply by declaring her support for Hillary?

{snip}

What’s different here is the dropping of even the pretense of objectivity. In unilaterally determining that Donald Trump is unfit even to be covered objectively–to the point that he must be disqualified by any means necessary–the mainstream media has set a dangerous precedent.