Image 01 Image 03

Poll: Voters Recognized and Rejected Media Bias

Poll: Voters Recognized and Rejected Media Bias

Bias. Bias everywhere!

A new Media Research Center (MRC) and YouGov poll shows that the majority of voters recognized media bias during the presidential election, but chose to reject it:

The poll found:

7 in 10 (69%) voters do not believe the news media are honest and truthful.

8 in 10 (78%) of voters believe the news coverage of the presidential campaign was biased, with nearly a 3-to-1 majority believing the media were for Clinton (59%) vs. for Trump (21%).

Even 1/3 (32%) of Clinton voters believe the media were “pro-Clinton.”

8% of Trump voters said they would have voted for Clinton if they had believed what the media were saying about Trump.

97% of voters said they did not let the media’s bias influence their vote.

MRC President Brent Bozell said:

“The media are in full panic mode because the American people rejected their leftist agenda — and them. People didn’t believe the nonsense that the media were politically neutral. Even a third of Hillary’s supporters believe they were pro-Hillary!

“When you have a strong majority of actual voters saying the national ‘news’ media were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton and tried to influence the public to vote for her; and believing they are fundamentally dishonest, you have a major problem that can’t be fixed with an apology. The public has rejected this institution as being either objective or truthful. There is an institutional bias at major media networks that must be repaired and I am highly skeptical that news executives are interested or capable of undertaking this responsibility.

“Despite the overwhelming and persistent bias of this cycle in particular, I am heartened by the fact that, according to our poll, the American people didn’t let it sway their vote. If this isn’t a wakeup call for the left-wing media to stay out of politics, I don’t know what is.”

Thing is, the bias didn’t stop after the election. The New York Times printed this front page the next day:


On Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough and Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin ripped apart the Grey Lady due to its obvious bias during the election:

MARK HALPERIN: Look at the headline of this story. [Featured Image] Look at the headline of this story. This is the day after a surprising underdog sweeping victory and their headline is not “disaffected Americans have a champion going to the White House” or “the country votes for fundamental change.” The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run the New York Times are about what’s happened. It’s amazing. It’s amazing to me that this is the headline of the New York Times.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Look at this. Look at this. This is staggering. It really is, Mark. I’m glad you brought this up.

HALPERIN: It’s The Onion.

JOE: This shows that the editors of the New York Times–I have the greatest respect for. They don’t get it.

The DNC emails that Wikileaks dumped provided even more examples of collusion between the Hillary campaign and media. In one instance, CNN asked the DNC for questions to ask Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Carly Fiorina.

The John Podesta email dump from Wikileaks also showed the cozy relationship between Democrats and the media. Washington Post bureau chief Juliet Eilperin once tipped off Podesta about a story she was writing.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Let them continue as biased (which they are doing). It is by virtue of whom and what the liberal media support and propagandize for that our enemy is identified.

While I am glad that people are finally coming around, there is also this part of me that is concerned that it took this long for a majority of people to figure out what should have been obvious.

The Founders considered the American people capable of self-government.

I think they were right.

You cant fix stupid.

I think “bias” is far too kind a word for what the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN at least did during this election. “Bias” at one time suggested some sort of subtle, inherent, inescapable, internal prejudice that tended to make a person view a story in a light more favorable to one side or another. Now it is being used to describe partisan advocacy.

The more appropriate term is “in-kind contribution” for active efforts to frame and push stories unfavorable to the Republicans, and to spike stories unfavorable to Clinton.

This activity continues, and was visible in stories sold to regional newspapers today.

And that, my friends, is why Breitbart has a wider circulation than either the Washington Post or the New York Times. It’s not a matter of dead trees v. electrons, or racism, or sexism, or any of the other ugly epithets slung by the New York Times and the Washington Post.

It’s the lying.

The Atlantic makes a first cut at a post-mortem.

It is far too kind, but it at least is a start to examine the behavior of the Democrats and their campaign.

    gospace in reply to Valerie. | November 16, 2016 at 7:00 am

    I read the Atlantic article. If the Democrats continue with those thought patterns, 2018 midterms will be a Republican romp. She was a uniquely horrible candidate. There is a refusal to recognize that. Trump’s message was simple and he kept with it. America first. He emphasized it. America first. He didn’t outline elaborate plans and policies. Just a drumbeat of America first. And the Democrats never said it.

    When the former President of Mexico endorsed Clinton, MSM ran with it as a good thing. I posted on Facebook that he thought Clinton would be a better president for Mexican interests then American ones. And I wasn’t the only person pounding that theme. Every time a foreign leader endorsed her, MSM ran positive stories on it. And thousands of ordinary people on social media asked, “Why is she better for them? I want someone better for us!”

    There have been post-mortems suggesting this election was decided by social media, in particular Facebook. I certainly think it was a contributing factor. A great many of my Facebook friends and I hold security clearances. And every one of us pointed out that if we had handled classified material the way she had, we’d be in jail for life. While MSM and Comey were saying no big deal. That message got through to people solely through social media and thousands of photo memes endlessly shared. Americans still want everyone to be equal under the law. Her getting special treatment didn’t play well with the people.

    It wasn’t any one thing that drove her negatives up so high that Trump won despite his high negatives. It was the totality of them. And Trump’s simple message. America first.

This is nothing new. NYTimes was defending the NAZI regime.
NYT was doing all in it’s power to destroy Richard Nixon.
The msm has gained power with the aid of some television stations and now social media.

Gray lady down! The NYT has permanently damaged their credibility. Their out right bias towards the Trump campaign
was so apparent and blatant. But they have done this for many years directed toward the republican party/conservatives.
The elites love them but the working man or woman not so much!

Since the election, they have pretty much doubled down on (not checking) and publishing the fake hate crimes blamed on Trump supporters.

I’ve seen almost no coverage of the protestor astroturfing.

Lisa Falkenberg, a star columnist in the Houston Chronicle, addressed this in her piece this morning by claiming that it isn’t bias – it’s cynicism. Golly gee, the journalist profession is too eager to report on the ‘broken parts’ of things instead of the parts that are working. Who knew?

Of course, the ‘broken parts’ are always taggable to Republicans, to Trump, to CEOs, to skeptics of the press narrative. This is bias, not cynicism. I wrote to tell her that as long as the press sees the public distrust as having arisen because of press cynicism, instead of bias, is why the press will never regain public trust.

This is why the mainstream media and social media sites (Google, Facebook) are now trying to choke off alternative sources of information. Legal Insurrection is not on the list yet, but many related blogs and news aggregators are.