When it was announced that Clinton Foundation donor Matt Lauer would moderate a forum with both candidates, people expected he’d be biased. But biased for Clinton. Because you know, the media is in bed with Hillary. Lo and behold, Lauer did a bit of a switchero on them by way of over-compesanting. Plot-twist, the liberals think he went soft on the Trumpster. But was “tough” on Hillary.
Naturally the leftist flying monkeys, who thought they’d get one performance, were a little upset at Lauer.
It’s just not what the people we were expecting…
— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 8, 2016
Matt Lauer Had the Chance to Call Out Donald Trump's Lies. He Totally Blew It. https://t.co/U8bzRBDGPz
— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) September 8, 2016
"It’s not a great idea, in general, for journalists to let politicians get away with bald-faced, on-camera lies": https://t.co/GVoLu6wIgw
— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) September 8, 2016
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) September 8, 2016
So first, here’s an accurate GIF of how all conservatives are reacting to the leftist pity-party:
Because conservatives experience this level of “Are you kidding me?” at any debate moderated by a liberal. All of them. Republican candidates never get a pass. They’re always thrown under a bus by a “moderator.”
Never send an entertainment reporter to do a political reporters job. Right? Even though I thought leftists preferred it (or interviews with YouTube celebrities)? Wasn’t embracing pop culture a good thing? You now, reaching out to the “low information voters” and all that?
Maybe not, as this post that Charles C.W. Cooke flagged on Twitter this morning points out…
I had not taken seriously the possibility that Donald Trump could win the presidency until I saw Matt Lauer host an hour-long interview with the two major party candidates. Lauer’s performance was not merely a failure, it was horrifying and shocking. The shock, for me, was the realization that most Americans inhabit a very different news environment than professional journalists. I not only consume a lot of news, since it’s my job, I also tend to focus on elite print news sources. Most voters, and all the more so undecided voters, subsist on a news diet supplied by the likes of Matt Lauer. And the reality transmitted to them from Lauer matches the reality of the polls, which is a world in which Clinton and Trump are equivalently flawed.
The voters liberals are pointing out who need to vote for the sake of voting? They may actually vote for the sake of voting. Johnny Six-Pack and Suzie Patriarchy who get their news from celebrities, and trust them more than actual news sources? Well crap. Lauer didn’t do his job. He didn’t throw the Republican candidate into the media wood-chipper. As was probably assumed he would.
And leftists are terrified of it. A media which doesn’t protect Hillary? Which goes soft on Trump? There’s nothing worse.
And we’re laughing at them…