In Our Opinion
Quite the Republican Convention last week in Cleveland, huh?
In an event where some figured there would be demonstrations and possible walkouts of delegates over Donald Trump earning the party’s nod to face Hillary Clinton, none of that happened.
The biggest controversy centered on speeches delivered at Quicken Loans Arena.
There was the dissing of Trump by former rival, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in a speech last Tuesday night. Also interesting was how so many media outlets thought Trump’s acceptance speech was considered so “dark,” when others saw it as a breath of fresh air.
Surprising, perhaps, was the “dust-up” over a mere 112 words. That’s the part of the speech Trump’s wife, Melania, delivered July 18.
Those few words out of over 1,300 contained in her address, raised a signal on the radar of unemployed reporter Jarrett Hill — a longtime Barack Obama fan by the way — who thought he’d heard parts of the speech in the past. Hill, who was listening to the speech from a Starbucks, reported it was similar to an address Michelle Obama gave in 2008 for her husband at the Democrat’s convention in Denver.
And the alleged plagiarism, which USA Today said, “was not entirely a verbatim match, but the two sections bear considerable similarity in wording, construction and themes,” reverberated like the “big one” earthquake along the San Andreas fault.
The effort by the mainstream media — who will try everything in their power to claim no bias in this election — tried to paint the Republican candidate as some kind of liar and cheat via his wife.
Now this week, a full seven days past Melania’s faux-paw, the Washington Post continues to double-down on her speech, inferring the entire address, not just several dozen words, were plagiarized, and suggesting possible violations of federal law.
This came in advance of the opening this past Monday of the Democrat’s convention in Philadelphia and was just prior to gaveling the gathering to order.
Also newsworthy was the revelation through emails from WikiLeaks that the Democratic National Committee played favorites and undermined the candidacy of Bernie Sanders in favor of Clinton.
DNC chair, Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, resigned her post but just as quickly became the honorary head of Clinton’s campaign.
The “gotcha” journalism found in so much of today’s politics likely plays a large part in why we have two candidates with such low, low, low likeability and popularity.
And it probably plays a big part in why no one in their right mind would dare subject themselves to the scrutiny and have one’s skeletons — no matter how big or small — released from the closet.
Setting traps to make a candidate hopefully stumble on the public stage is not limited to national politics.
Even here in Cheney when 5th Dist. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers visited for a town hall gathering, there was genuine glee amongst some of her detractors when the Congresswoman was stumped on a question. Because there was hope a video snippet might “go viral,” so as to better discredit her.
Trump has made his unlikely ride to the Republican nomination because of a very unorthodox — oftentimes abrasive, mean-spirited at times and unhinged in some minds — approach to his campaign.
His fans love someone to tell it like he (and they) see it and not walk carefully around controversial subjects in the name of political correctness.
Reporters swarm like sharks waiting for that moment to tear apart a victim and get the blood in the water vaulting them and their story into the spotlight.
Soundbites — or 112-word snippets — take the place of the full story and help craft the opinions of voters who largely consume and digest news that only aligns with what they believe.
That’s too bad, because making other facts and information available to maybe provide context and better understanding of a candidate or a cause is certainly beneficial.
If a few carefully edited words are all you use to guide your choice on the ballot, chances are there’s a mistake in the making.
Reader Comments(0)