This is a cut and dry coverup in action.

Hillary really wants to choke this thing away.

well done

I remain amazed that anyone could possibly be clueless enough to legitimately think that any mainstream American network or publication has a net bias towards Clinton after the past 25 years, yet that's exactly what these hurr durrs who are regurgitating anti-WaPo talking points and the "Clinton news network" slogan are suggesting.

The only possible explanation for this would be: 1) they aren't American, 2) it's not legitimate.

She hasn't been running against Trump for the last 25 years. I'm not saying the allegations of the Clinton spin machine are true, but to claim that there aren't some in mainstream media pulling for HRC to stop Trump is silly.

what with mika screeching this morning how awesome the se(c)retary is and not wanting to show clips of her rally yesterday, and the washington compost crying about drudge (they really ought to be thanking him for getting any traffic to go to that glorified tabloid gutter site) and (c)lintons health being a frequent topic (was no biggie in 2008 with mccain though) its clear there is 100% balance in the what is it 6% or 8% trustyworthy american alphabet media.

I'm not really sure how someone could claim the media doesn't run on a high proportion of bias regardless of the side. Like how dumb do you think we are Jay? I'm sure your job would be a lot easier if people eat the shit you shovel but sorry the media blatantly spins stories to serve their own ends. HRC is now an end regardless of how you feel about her.

She doesn't have to have been running against Trump (or anyone specifically) for 25 years for media sources to have a consistent bias against her -- that perspective completely ignores the way in which media bias actually happens in American mainstream media. Publications and networks don't sit down and deliberately write or tailor their comments to consciously hurt or help one person or "side," outside of opinion commentary that is (usually) acknowledged at the header and then digested accordingly by readers depending on their ideology -- the bias comes in when one (or more) person benefits from commentary that is presented as though it's even-handed when in fact it isn't. That's the media bias problem that American media has in reality, and why so many people scoff at the laughable notion that our media has a "liberal bias."

It doesn't have a liberal bias. There is no "both sides do it." Our media has a tremendous "bothsidesdoit"-ism problem, and real biases are born because our press refuses to break from that overarching pattern.

im not racist but trump tells it how it is

At least hook me up with some Bleu Cheese to go along with that word salad. The media has downplayed stories that 2 years ago would have been bigger, they're doing it to try and oust Trump. Its not that hard of a thing to admit, the media has been a cesspool for decades.

If you're unable to follow an incredibly simple concept -- that one person or "side" ultimately suffers from a press inherently geared towards "bothsidesdoit"-ism, then I don't think I can make it any more clear; I think that would speak more to your own failings. I don't know what you're referring when you mention "2 stories." Again, the political press rarely deliberately sets out with such a conscious motive under the guise of providing even-handed journalism, especially because they know that at least one audience is going to reflexively make that complaint.

We have at least 2 perfect examples, in the last week no less, that perfectly demonstrate the real media bias in our media:

1) Clinton's point-by-point systematic illustration of Trump's (and his campaign) relationship with the alt-right and his retort, "without argumentation or evidence" (from the WaPo editorial board, who smacked the NYT for pushing false equivalence on this) that Clinton is a "bigot."

2) Clinton's campaign highlighting the many examples of unseemly (and in several cases illegal) behavior of new Trump campaign "CEO" Steve Bannon, while the NYT's Maggie Haberman somehow, inexplicably draws up a false equivalence that "it's going to be hard for Democrats to be hard to argue" that "Anthony Weiner is off-limits," despite the reality that he not even remotely involved in the Clinton campaign.

It's been this way for 25 years. Very rarely does the political press set out to consciously help one campaign at the other's expense, but their overarching style of coverage carries a considerable bias against Clinton. That just cannot rationally be denied at this point. It exists with and without Trump running for president because it's not the product of electoral politics.