Would you bet there will be no Hillary ‘Pill’ for this ‘Bill’?
In My Previous Post
I stated I will explore how the ‘Clinton Bill’s’ affected the Mass Media and you.
The ulterior meaning of ‘Bill’s’ is in reference to Bill Clinton and ‘Pill’s’ is a reference to Hillary Clinton. The purpose of this series of posts is to review the results of their negotiations during their terms of office and how it has affected US Workers and our Nation. The reason I referred ‘Pill’ to Hillary Clinton is because she is now promising to ‘cure’ the ill effects, same as a medicinal pill might, the bills created during Bill’s term as President.
Anyone who follows political news has surely discerned that there is favoritism reporting taking place. Instead of responsible reporting, writers and commentators are skewing their reporting either slyly, or with blatant bias, toward the candidate they favor.
Textbook journalism states the first purpose of Journalism, to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing.
Two Source Articles in this Post
One Source explains how Bill Clinton signed a Bill that was originally intended to remove FCC government restrictions to increase competition of news sources to benefit Americans need for information.
However, it had an opposite effect according to this Excerpt.
“ consolidation was already an extremely pressing concern long before 1996. In 1983, Ben Bagdikian published his groundbreaking book, The Media Monopoly, which revealed that just 50 corporations owned 90 percent of the media. That number gradually dwindled over the coming 13 years and was accelerated by the Telecommunications Act. This has led us to the aforementioned crisis where more than 90 percent of the media is owned by just six companies: Viacom, News Corporation, Comcast, CBS, Time Warner and Disney.”
The other Source Article is about reporting propaganda instead of news.
Don’t be surprised if you see a poor person being oppressed by the powerful and if justice is being miscarried throughout the land. For every official is under orders from higher up, and matters of justice get lost in red tape and bureaucracy. (Ecclesiastes 5:8)
What is My Point
Journalists and commentators answer to someone higher when they choose to communicate either a negative or positive about candidates. The Chicago Tribune on August 14, 2016, article r reads as follows:
“A Pew Research Center analysis found that during the later stages of 2012 presidential race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, 46 percent of Fox News stories were negative and 6 percent were positive. But liberal MSNBC was even more lopsided toward Romney – 71 percent negative and 3 percent positive. CNN was in the middle but also tougher on Romney, where CNN coverage was 36 percent negative compared with Obama’s 21 percent.”
I can only guess how lopsided this year’s election percentages will be negative versus positive. When do lopsided percentages equate to be propaganda?
Also, why Congress has not repealed, or attempted to amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 signed by Bill Clinton when what has occurred is the opposite effect?
Will Hilleary ever doing anything to hold the higher ups responsible to provide journalism for voters with the information they need to be free and self-governing?
In My Opinion
If Donald Trump threatens to amend the Telecommunication Act of 1996 because it is not working as originally intended, the negative percentage reporting of him will incipiently increase.
Hillary will never use her Pill to amend ‘Clintons Bills’ or against the same higher ups who supported Obama to win his election. And if Clinton wins, on this issue, “nothing new under the sun.” will occur by her about the Telecommunication Act of 1996 signed by Bill Clinton.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Democracy in Peril HERE
News and Propaganda HERE