Absence of Fair and Balanced Media Coverage of Trump v. Biden Round One

by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman)

In a same-day article, I sharply criticized the deeply debauched US political system — reflecting fantasy democracy, never the real thing.

How can it be in a one-party state with two right wings, each taking turns running the White House and/or Congress.

Voters have no say over how the nation is run. Women were disenfranchised until 1920. 

Racial discrimination is rife. Civil and voting rights gains of the 1960s largely eroded.

What passes for government of, by, and for everyone is rule by powerful interests for their own benefit exclusively — at the expense of ordinary people everywhere.

In discussing Trump v. Biden round one last night, established media explained none of the above, what's never part of their political reporting.

News consumers are left uninformed in the dark, their minds filled with mush instead of truth and full disclosure content.

Never from the likes of the NYT on major domestic and geopolitical issues, its coverage of last night's spitting match no exception.

Trump and Biden share blame for featuring mud-slinging ad hominem insults over even-handed give-and-take on major issues to let voters know where they stand.

Not according to the self-styled newspaper of record. As expected, it one-sidedly accused Trump of "lies and mockery," adding:

He "trample(d) decorum…(i)nterrupting…Biden nearly every time he spoke," accusing Trump of "bulldozer-style tactics."

The WSJ was more even-handed, saying both "candidates constantly spoke over each other in exchanges more notable for rancor than policy nuance," adding:

According to a recent WSJ/NBC News poll, "(m)ore than 70% (of respondents say) the debate(s) (sic) wouldn't matter much to them."

Throughout its post-debate coverage, the Times showed clear bias for Biden over Trump.

Since becaming Dem standard bearer, the self-styled newspaper of record has been a virtual Biden press agent — repeating its one-sided pro-Hillary support in 2016.

Ignoring his near-half century of shilling for powerful interests, his pro-endless wars/anti-peace, equity, justice and the rule of law agenda throughout his public life, the Times is going all-out editorially to prevent a second Trump term by one-sided support for his challenger — through an onslaught of Trump bashing. 

The broadsheet's chief foreign affairs propagandist Tom Friedman was over-the-top as in all his misinformation, disinformation, fake news reports with remarks like the following:

"Our democracy (sic) is in terrible danger — more danger than it has been since the Civil War (sic), more danger than after Pearl Harbor (sic), more danger than during the Cuban missile crisis (sic), and more danger than during Watergate (sic)," adding:

"(T)hat is why the only choice in this election is Joe Biden (sic)."

I've stressed repeatedly said that today is the most perilous time in world history for domestic and geopolitical reasons left unexplained by the Times and other establishment media.

On November 3, "the only choice in this election" is none of the above — other than voting independent to make a statement.

Otherwise stay home. On major domestic and geopolitical issues mattering most, Republicans and Dems are largely two sides of the coin.

They're pro-war, anti-peace, pro-corporate empowerment, anti-governance serving everyone equitably according to international, constitutional, and US statute laws.

They oppose mutual cooperation with other nations, seeking unchallenged dominance over all countries, their resources and populations.

Trump and Biden differ largely in style. Neither warrants support from voters wanting democracy the way it should be, what's been absent in the US from inception.

There's plenty about Trump to criticize, what I've done time and again.

To his credit, he launched no new hot wars — unlike the Clintons, Bush/Cheney, and Obama/Biden.

To his discredit, he's waged all-out war by other means on China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba and Nicaragua.

On his watch, a US color revolution plot against legitimately elected Belarusian President Lukashenko continues — wanting the country transformed into a US vassal state, its people mistreated as serfs.

In a separate pro-Biden, anti-Trump piece, the Times said the following:

"Trump trampled over everything. (He's) an aggressor."

"Biden (ran) as a statesman promising to restore the soul of America (sic)."

"(F)or the most part, (he) succeeded in avoiding the chum that…Trump was tossing into the debate water (sic)."

Another Times piece called Trump's Tuesday night performance "rampaging volume, custom-busting obtrusion and outright fiction as necessary to impose his will on the proceedings."

In stark contrast, the Times described Biden as follows:

He's "the son of Scranton (and man of Washington) whom even supporters admire more for his intentions than his eloquence (sic)." 

He's "the candidate (Dems) have come to know, for better or worse, across three presidential campaigns…"

He's "the amiable sidekick to the nation's first Black president, a capital veteran who has transcended personal hardships, facing down an opponent rarely cited for feats of empathy and often openly hostile to the nation's institutions (sic)."

Post-round one Trump/Biden spitting match reporting by the Times was one-sidedly for the challenger over the incumbent.

Fair and balanced coverage was absent. There's plenty about both figures to criticize.

The Times failed the test, the same sure to continue daily through and post-November 3 elections.

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

"How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War"

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

"Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity"

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/