Blog/2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Posted Sep 26, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
The lack of integrity among the press is becoming just in your face. The New York Times published an amazing endorsement of Hillary Clinton on Saturday in hopes that they can persuade their readers to overlook all the scandals of Hillary and make her President. I would understand not endorsing either, but to ignore the law, the corruption, and common sense, merely reveals that the New York Times cannot be trusted. This is even more astonishing from the standpoint that the New York Times was the paper to break the story on Hillary’s emails on March 2nd, 2015. It was also the New York Times that published “2008 Crisis Deepened the Ties Between Clintons and Goldman Sachs” explaining how Hillary came to help rescue their image. It was the New York Times that reported how Hillary kept changing her story on the emails. To simply ignore all of this as if it never happened leaves one speechless at the political attempt to manipulate the public. This is what the New York Times actually wrote in their endorsement:
“In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)”
To call Trump the “worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history” is just astonishing and leaves one with their mouth wide-open. Emails, corruption, Clinton Foundation taking money from foreign governments when Hillary is Secretary of State all means nothing. If this is honorable showing trustworthiness, then the old saying people judge others by themselves means this is what the New York Times also thinks is acceptable. This endorsement is clearly a desperate attempt by the ESTABLISHMENT to rig the election just as the media did in Britain to convince the people they should surrender their dignity to Brussels. There too the press predicted a major depression and collapse of Britain if they people voted to exit Europe. Nothing of the sort has unfolded and the scare tactics of mainstream media in that instance was deplorable. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse have all had to revise their forecasts that called for the end of the world if BREXIT passed.
The New York Post has said it best. This election has captured in their bold headline: American journalism is collapsing before our eyes. Indeed, this is the end of mainstream media. If Trump wins, this victory may see the decline and fall of mainstream media once and for all. As the younger generation abandon such media, even Warren Buffett has said he would only invest in local community newspapers. USA Today has been offering buy-outs for employees with over 15 years on the job who are 55 or older to reduce the work force.
TV began to displace newspapers with their nightly news programs and coverage of political debates live. That started the process of the decline and fall of newspapers. Now the internet is here and the younger generations do not buy newspapers. The lifeblood of media has been advertising revenue. That has turned the tide. There is a growth of 15.7% in advertising revenue, but it is all on the internet with not increases appearing for TV or newspapers. This biased and foolish endorsement of Hillary by the New York Times has simply exposed that they are part of the ESTABLISHMENT and this is really what is under attack in these elections on a global basis. It is like supporting Napoleon in the Battle of Waterloo on that fateful day of June 18th, 1815.