Media Still ‘Enemy of the People,’ Most Voters Say

[ltlee1]

"A majority of voters don’t trust the news they’re getting about politics, and still agree with former President Donald Trump’s denunciation of the news media as “the enemy of the people.”

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 30% of Likely U.S. voters say they trust the political news they’re getting – down from 37% in July 2021 – while 52% say they don’t trust political news, and 19% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
...
The survey of 1,002 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on May 16-18, 2023 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/media_still_enemy_of_the_people_most_voters_say

[V õ l u r]

Come chk

|
|
|
↓

kohtumispaik3.66ghz.com/$/a.php

&

anglezzzzzzz.likesyou.org/a.php

🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞

[ltlee1]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/finally-can-we-ask-who-really-colluded-with-russia-press-durham-sanctions-fbi-c79d74a4
---------------------------------------------------
Finally, Can We Ask Who Really Colluded With Russia?
If the crime is promoting distrust in institutions, the evidence is strongest against the FBI and media.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
May 26, 2023 5:57 pm ET

Millions of Americans despise Donald Trump and probably think it was justified or at least good clean
fun when the Hillary Clinton campaign manufactured fake evidence of collusion with Russia, and the
FBI and other branches of government used this information to trammel his presidency. At least this
view, whatever its faults, isn’t stupid.

But stop the presses: Now we have a real case of collusion. Since the Ukraine war, Russia’s PR operation
has published lists of individuals under meaningless Kremlin sanctions. These lists are scanned by
pundits, wonks and politicians to see if they can brag about being unpopular with Vladimir Putin.

Last week Russia came out with 500 more names, including some criticized by Donald Trump, like Georgia
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who certified his 2020 defeat in the state, and the Capitol policeman
who shot Ashli Babbitt during the Jan. 6 riot. Press commentary universally portrayed this as a Kremlin
attempt to “help” Mr. Trump, but how does it help Mr. Trump, and how could Russia fail to know exactly
how its action would be played in the U.S. press? How is the press, therefore, not playing along with Russia?

The word we’ve needed all along for the press and its fellow collusion-hoax promoters is disingenuous—
defined by Oxford as “not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something
than one really does.”

Disingenuous was the press’s handling of a collusion story it always knew was partisan, implausible and
unsupported. Disingenuous was the New York Times harrumphing last week that the latest John Durham
report fails to live up to “years of political hype.” Of course, it shouldn’t have. Hype is short for hyperbole—
exaggeration. Do we want prosecutors to cleave to hype or to facts? Read on and the hype Mr. Durham
failed to live up to was Donald Trump’s—the paper relies on Mr. Trump to tell it how to frame the news.

I could go on. Disingenuous was the Vox writer who trumpeted that Mr. Durham failed to prove a criminal
conspiracy by Democrats. Mr. Durham not only failed to prove it, he failed to charge it, and never suggested
by word or deed this was his intention. In his three measured criminal cases, he never cited conspiracy
charges. He also did not leak. He did not rush his work to influence elections.

This studied disingenuousness has been the press’s consistent method on collusion for six years, instead
of asking the obvious question, “What is true?”
...
---------------------------------------------------

The free press is not free if corporate media has to choose what will maximize profit over what is true.