One-sided journalism is propaganda, not journalism.
Editors note: I submitted the following as my bi-monthly column submission to the Tampa Bay Times two weeks ago. The editor rejected the column saying it “does not fit in tone or substance.” I pointed out to the editor that the subject matter was in the ultra-liberal New York Times (and referenced in the column) days earlier. I further pointed out that the Tampa Bay Times has a regular columnist who frequently calls names, bashes Republicans and makes baseless claims, while my rejected column does none of that.
The editor later said they would be running the New York Times piece in the Sunday opinion section, which they did.
Not surprisingly, subsequent to my rejected column with its “unfit tone and substance,” the Tampa Bay Times has run multiple front page stories and editorials on unproven allegations of sexual harassment against Donald Trump.
Regardless, the Tampa Bay Times’ decision is an example of a today’s liberal media. They embrace thought-provoking differences of opinion — so long as those opinions are theirs, and they conform with the propaganda it calls journalism. I have notified the Tampa Bay Times‘ editor that I will no longer be writing for the paper. One-sided opinion is merely propaganda and is not something I wish to be associated with. Shame on me really, what should I have expected from a paper that in over 100 years of existence has never endorsed a Republican for president or governor of the state of Florida?
I have cancelled my subscription to the Tampa Bay Times. You can do so by calling this number: 1-800-888-7012.
Images were not included in column submission.
Here is the column:
Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy
Last year, while addressing the press in Iowa, Hillary Clinton said, “Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault… don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we’re with you.”
But practicing what she preaches has never been Mrs. Clinton’s strong suit. As it relates to addressing sexual predators, she has taken a blind-eye to the one who is most front and center in her life: her husband Bill Clinton.
Out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump has tried to make an issue of Mr. Clinton’s behavior, but he is not making the connection as to why it is relevant in this year’s campaign for the White House.
The relevancy is not the fact that Mr. Clinton has been accused of rape (by Juanita Broderick and Eileen Wellstone), has engaged in what can only be characterized as workplace sexual harassment (in the cases of Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky), as well as groping (Kathleen Wiley, Christy Zercher, Sandra Allen James), not to mention claims of extramarital affairs; no, what is relevant is Mrs. Clinton’s behavior as it relates to her husband’s misogyny. Because she is right. Victims of sexual assault (and harassment), have the right to be heard, and the right to be believed.
But over the years, Mrs. Clinton has chosen to not help women who are victims of her husband’s assaults. Instead, she has vilified and denounced those women who have accused him of rape, abuse, and workplace harassment. She once referred to Flowers as a “bimbo” and “trailer park trash,” and referred to Lewinksy as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Her husband has admitted to relations with both women – both of whom were under his employ at the time of his mistreatment.
Imagine for a moment if a prominent Republican had been accused of rape, sexual harassment in the workplace, or had carried on with a young intern. No doubt, liberals, feminists, and Hillary Clinton would have certainly (and appropriately) condemned them, called for investigations, resignation, etc., and would have repeatedly reminded us that the victim was the woman.
Over the years, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly had the chance to stand up for her husband’s victims, but she has done none of that. Instead, she has chosen to ignore what’s right for victims, in favor of what is best for her and her political aspirations by defending her husband and attacking the victims.
According to a report in the October 2, 2016 New York Times, “Outwardly, [Mrs. Clinton] remained stoic and defiant, defending her husband while a progression of women and well-funded conservative operatives accused Mr. Clinton of behavior unbecoming the leader of the free world.
But privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign’s aggressive strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting — tactics that women’s rights advocates frequently denounce.
The campaign hired a private investigator with a bare-knuckles reputation who embarked on a mission, as he put it in a memo, to impugn Ms. Flowers’s ‘character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition.’”
While nothing Mrs. Clinton says is, in my opinion, credible, and her actions or inaction on sexual assault victims won’t change my vote, I am dumbfounded by the number of women who claim to be feminists who are willing to give Mrs. Clinton a pass.
Perhaps having blinders on and being in denial about Mrs. Clinton’s pathetic actions involving her husband’s misogynistic behavior makes it easier to cast a ballot for her; but it sends a terrible message to young and impressionable women who look up to Mrs. Clinton as role model.
“Don’t let anyone silence your voice,” she says. Unless that is, she is doing the silencing and the silence benefits her. Mrs. Clinton’s hypocrisy suggests she’s just fine with it remaining a man’s world.
Chris Ingram is a columnist, Republican political consultant, and political analyst for Bay News 9.