A daily observer of the 2016 election and a prolific political writer on Facebook and later on Twitter, I followed closely the behavior of the media, the organization of all of the political parties, the announcements of the candidates, the primaries and caucuses, the general election and the aftermath. I even read Miami Gossip Columns--lol!
I followed the 2016 election so closely I finished #3 out of 220,000 participants in CNN's Political Prediction Market contest, and I became designated by Medium.com, a large internet writing collaborative, as one of the forum's Top 2016 Election Writers.
During late 2015 and early 2016 I was thoroughly baffled by several developments:
How the media reported like that Clinton--despite other quality candidates (three US senators and a governor) in the race--had the nomination in the bag.
How Trump was not being properly vetted for his past shady business dealings and scandals before, during and after he announced.
How Trump, Carson and Cruz got so much early media attention.
How Bernie Sanders was received scant media attention given he was filling major professional sports stadiums and city civic centers, leading Trump in head-to-head match-ups and polling well enough to win Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. Sanders almost always was mentioned in a negative context measured against Clinton.
How so many Democratic super-delegates had endorsed Clinton at a point when no issues had even been discussed in the campaign, before any votes had even been counted.
How lots of Clinton's political baggage was either deflected or outright ignored by the media.
This was just the beginning. As the election progressed I determined there was a complete and total breakdown, a fix, as to how America's media reported. It appeared as if the race was pre-determined and but for the excitement of each state's election day process, the nominees already had been decided. This prompted me to write the following:
Anyway, we all know what happened and here we are today with not many of us as happy campers. Examining the below Wikileaks documents provides an excellent hint as to why I was baffled during the early phase of the election. As the election evolved, main media barely reported on the content to what Wikileaks was exposing and alternatively focused on the false and manufactured anti-Russian narrative that the DNC was hacked in collusion with both Trump and Wikileaks. This caused lots of folks to take their eye off the ball.
In my humble opinion, the DNC documents resulted from an inside leak, not a Russian hack. I'd be happy to debate anyone on this subject. I earnestly wish the US media would invite former UK ambassador Craig Murray to give an address at the National Press Club. Murray asserted--his statement ignored by main media--that he flew to Washington DC to retrieve the DNC documents that Wikileaks released. But America's monopolized media won't do this as it doesn't want to let the public know its reporting has been flea and worm infested.
Below are some marvels from Wikileaks transparency in journalism:
From The Intercept:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12063
Below is Hillary's Press and Surrogate Plan:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3125944-Press-Surrogate-Plan-030815.html