Is Hillary Clinton (who I am certainly going to vote for) my dream candidate? No, I would not state the case that way. Among other things, if I could tell her to do one thing and she had to do it, it would be to put a hard swift boot on the a*ses of the neocowards that she inexplicably still has hanging around. She should know better. Anyone should, by now. Indeed, long since.
That being said, a study came out which confirms what a lot of us have pretty much known for a while. I’m putting it out here as good to throw in the faces of those who claim otherwise. Not that that generally works with those making those claims – motivated reasoning is very resistant to fact, that’s the whole point – but third parties might take note. Note that it’s from a department of the right-wing Kennedy School of Government.
“Far more negative?” More like insanely more negative! The study found that 84 percent of Clinton’s coverage has been “negative in tone” compared to just 43 percent for Trump and 17 percent for Sanders. Even though many of us would just (as soon) forget about Rafael Cruz at this stage, it’s notable to point out that he received fairly balanced press coverage in comparison to his opponent. So while the media insured their playing field was much more leveled, they didn’t afford us the same luxury.
Now, corporate media can’t really swing presidential elections. If it could, we’d be counting down President McCain’s (in all likelihood disastrous) time in the White House, and with VP Palin running well ahead in the polls as his successor. But this, and so much else, are nonetheless disgraceful failures when it comes to their alleged provision of legitimate journalism. What a f*cking joke.