Commenter IBC writes:
The idea that Trump’s refusal to pledge an immediate and unconditional concession to Hillary’s anticipated but still uncertain victory, is predicated on the now proven-to-be-false media narrative that his coalition of supporters is violent and incapable of tolerating political dissent. Now that we have the hard evidence that violence at Trump’s rallies was primarily the result of false-flag operations planned and approved by Team Hillary, why hasn’t the media itself conceded its own role in sowing fear and divisiveness amongst the American electorate and especially by accomplishing it through fraudulent and politically-motivated “reporting?”
There has been a lot of political violence over the last 12 months, but, contrary to the huge numbers of warnings from the media about the onrushing violence from Trump supporters, about 95-98% has come from either Hillary supporters or from groups Hillary supports: black cop killers, black rioters, Muslim terrorists, people of color attacking Trump supporters coming and going from Trump rallies, etc. etc. Some of the handful of punches thrown by Trump supporters were due to provocations by paid Hillary operatives. But the big story is that the vast majority of violence came from the anti-Trump side.
Many journalists have put so much effort into warning of Trumpian violence that they can’t remember and/or don’t want to admit it largely never went through the formality of coming into existence.
So they are off in their own Alternative Reality in which what you saw with your lying eyes since San Bernardino in late 2015 never happened and instead what they tried to conjure up with words is truth.
Any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who ignores credible reports of voting “irregularities:” whether it’s among senior citizens in Florida, independent-thinking blacks and Latinos in machine cities like Chicago, or even in districts with high numbers of working-class “white men,” endangers the expectation of fair play and justice which is the true source of political legitimacy in a democratic system founded on the principle of consent of the governed. If there are any questions of electoral wrong-doing that might tip the balance of results, candidates have a duty, not to concede at the first suggestion of defeat, but to push for the impartial investigation of what happened until the question is resolved or it becomes clear that that contest is no longer relevant to election results at large. This is one of the reasons why candidates-elect don’t actually take office until almost two months after Election Day!
I’m amazed at how the media has framed this issue; almost completely ignoring Al Gore’s legal challenge of returns in Florida only 16 years ago. On PBS, the only analogy made was to Nixon and his peaceful resignation after impeachment –an entirely different situation, the choice of which would seem to have more to do with framing a sense of guilt by association and moral aspersion than actually explaining what might happen this November. It’s difficult to tell whether perhaps some of these pundits don’t have sufficient powers of “recall” to remember Gore or whether they just refuse to mention something that might hurt their chosen candidate, but shame on them whatever their excuses!
The shamefulness of media behavior in 2016 is a big, big story.