I’m going to let you all in on a little secret: this whole “media” thing is a game.
We are all fighting for your attention. Some people like to read things that make them mad. Some people like to read things that are uplifting. Some want articles that affirm their worldview, while others want to read a different perspective.
No matter what you are looking for, odds are you can find it.
That’s why you see such a difference in coverage based on each individual. News and media outlets know how to milk each and every situation to get every last dollar out of it.
You’ve heard people ask “why do they cover black murderers different than white murderers?” and the answer is simple: money. Each story’s money making potential is taken into consideration when being published. Maybe not by the person writing the story, but at the least by the person looking at the bottom line.
The same can be said in regards to politics. In fact, I’d say politics serve as a better example of this.
While we do our best to deliver the truth, there’s no denying we appeal to a certain demographic. We make jokes at the expense of democrats because we know who butters our bread.
Take Beto O’Rourke for example. Following the mass shooting in Odessa and Midland, Beto was quick to speak out. While that was going on, internet rumors began to spread that the shooter was a Beto supporter, and had a Beto sticker on his car.
WHILE THESE RUMORS CANNOT BE PROVEN FALSE (which is the new leftist standard…. the whole “guilty until exonerated” thing), the left-wing media wasted no time jumping to the aid of Beto.
CBS news (aka, the CIA’s mouthpiece) was quick to make sure the world knew the shooter was totally, definitely not a Beto supporter:
“This weekend, a right wing bot network spread the completely false rumor that the Odessa shooter had a Beto sticker on his car. This was even echoed by Trump advisors,” O’Rourke campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon wrote on Twitter on Tuesday. “As a campaign, we’re almost entirely powerless to stop misinformation. We can tweet corrections, but only a fragment of the people exposed will see it. This rests on Twitter, Facebook, and Google who let this go completely unchecked.”
Dillon tweeted pictures of two tweets which went viral on Twitter claiming the shooter was an O’Rourke supporter. Oscar Villarreal, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, told The Washington Post that there was no indication the shooter was an O’Rourke supporter.
So, here’s where things can potentially get stupid (and I’m going to let them). The Left says that people, particularly public figures, are guilty until totally exonerated. It was a lot easier when we were all given the presumption of innocence, but the cultural gatekeepers have changed the rules.
The police cannot prove the shooter WAS NOT a Beto supporter, therefor, it’s completely and totally possible he was a Beto loving socialist. Hell, the guy was IN TEXAS. Statistically, there’s a good chance he supported Beto.
PLUS he worked for the government. This comes from the Federal News Network:
Long before Donald Trump’s longshot bid to win the White House, unions representing federal workers and postal employees had almost exclusively supported Democratic candidates for the presidency and, with few exceptions, the House and Senate. They still do. Unions — very, very quietly — helped former Reps. Tom Davis (R-Va.) and Frank Wolf (R-Va.). They worked closely with Democrats with clout, like Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), and former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), to sweeten meager pay raises proposed by the presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. But mostly their endorsements, union PAC money and logistical support goes to Democratic candidates and incumbents.
So, we have a disgruntled ex-federal employee in Texas. Federal workers tend to vote democrat. Beto is from Texas. Now, we are in no way saying we know who this guy supported politically, but we do know it isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
In fact, that data would indicate that the shooter most likely was a democrat. And since the police can’t 100% confirm that he WASN’T a Beto supporter, the masses are left to their own thoughts.
The interesting thing through all of this is the cover fire being provided. Media Matters was quick to call the claim “false” with no evidence to the contrary outside of a “we have no idea” from authorities. That isn’t a very convincing argument.
Again, this isn’t a piece about the shooter. This isn’t about Beto. This is about how the media chooses to cover different events, and different politicians based on the audience being served.