Media Kingmaking- The case that the Media selects our presidential candidates.

By: Michael D. Jacobsen

This is another subject that people have probably heard mentioned around every presidential election cycle. Some will roll their eyes at the idea that the media can control who does and does not run for President but when you look at the years of media interference in the process you might reconsider.

A good many people who might have had a strong chance to become their parties presidential candidate have had their hopes crushed by the media looking for dirt on them, then printing it. While a candidate who did become the party nominee has the same dirt as the person the media took down but the media did not make nearly as big a story of it. And sadly in the case of one person trying to get their parties nomination, the media just ignored his campaign despite huge crowds and only mentioned him if there was a negative story to run.

I would like to start with the story of Gary Hart. In 1987 he was considered by many to be the front runner for the Democratic nomination. It was well known from his previous campaign in 1984 that he cheated on his wife many times. However it was not considered important enough to report in his first try to be the candidate. But when it seemed he would be the winner of the 1988 nomination, the media followed Hart around until they could produce indisputable evidence of his infidelity. The following scandal forced him to remove himself from consideration. Paving the way for a Michael Dukakis nomination, who lost the Presidential election to George H.W. Bush.

In 1992 Ross Perot was threatening to upset the balance of power between the Democratic and Republican parties. In his first run as an independent he garnered amazing support at first, leading many presidential polls. However he  decided to leave the presidential race citing what he called “constant harassment from the press”. He rejoined the race a few months later but his support had declined. He did win back some of the support he lost but it was not nearly enough. Especially with the press airing stories of how his handled his campaign and its staffers.  He finished third in presidential voting gathering 19,743,821 votes almost 19 percent of votes cast. He ran again in 1996 but media bad mouthing and an exclusion from the presidential debates limited him to earning only 8 million votes.

Then in 2000, there were two people who made for strong contenders in the Republican presidential candidate race. There was John McCain, a long time Senator who was considered a very major player in the republican party. He was basically running against George W. Bush , a largely unknown Governor from Texas who did not seem to have a large base of popular support. While McCain initially led in the polls and won the first primary in New Hampshire, the Bush campaign countered with a vicious smear attack on his adopted daughter from Bangladesh. Something the media knew was false but did nothing to correct. As we all know Bush went on to become President and McCain who was unfit to run for president in 2000 was later approved to run in 2008 where he lost to Barrack Obama.

Speaking of 2008, Hillary Clinton ran against Barrack Obama for the democratic nomination in that year. Of course the media made much mention of her support for her cheating husband the former President Bill Clinton, and made a point to paint comments he made in a very unfavorable light towards black voters. Yet these very objections were ignored by the media when they supported her candidacy in 2016. Also the media made sure to remind the very much anti-war Democrats that she was  They also downplayed her many primary victories in an effort to make sure Barrack Obama won the nomination. She would also gain the nomination 8 years later(much like McCain) and then lose to current President Donald Trump. Just out of curiosity does anyone else notice a pattern here?

The last past person that I would like to mention who was running for their parties nomination is the man who ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2012, Ron Paul. In 2012 he had a massive grassroots campaign, and his rallies drew the support of record crowds around the nation. Yet when it came to media coverage it was scare if no coverage at all. It was rather obviously shown that the media had no interest in covering the Ron Paul campaign. This lack of coverage led to Mitt Romney becoming the candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination,which he; of course lost to Barrack Obama in the Presidential election. And it does seem like Romney is being groomed for a 2024 presidential run. Almost like those that lose previous elections become the forerunner to get the nomination to lose to the next person chosen to become President.

Which leads us to this year and already the media is working to silence those that might want to run for president but are not approved. Recently Tulsi Gabbard announced her intention to run for the democratic nomination for president. Soon after the media published what was obviously a hit piece that hey had ignored during her time in congress. That is she held anti-LGBT views back in the early 2000’s. This created an uproar and has already tarnished her chances of securing the nomination. It is interesting to note that Hillary Clinton held similar views up until about 2013, yet the media did not make much of a fuss over it. But comments made by Gabbard over a decade ago is considered newsworthy. Add to this that now liberal media is trying to convince people that her campaign has the support of Russia. Does the media feel that Russia supports her or could it be the media does not want her considered due to her strong anti-war stance? Which is exactly what the deep state, which controls politics and the media wants to continue.

While there is more to this than just media coverage that determines who becomes the candidate of either party. It does provide some insight into how it does help determine who gets the nomination. The phrase “Presidents are selected, not elected.” Can be seen to have some validity in light of this article. Every time there is a presidential election, it does not take long to determine that there would not have been much of a difference between either the Democrat or Republican candidate winning. Yet we still allow the media to, in essence play kingmaker.

And that my friends is the Uncensored Truth, thank you for reading.

Like us on Facebook at The Uncensored Truth.

Follow us on Twitter at The Uncensored Truth.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s