The Ethics of Election Coverage
Stanford Magazine
127

The point of the article seems to be that journalistic neutrality is less important than conviction. I’ll buy that. But I’ll confess to being seriously irritated at the invocation of Burns’ speech at Stanford as an example. There’s no question that Trump is repellent and unfit for the presidency, as Burns pointed out. But the idea that anyone else (in this case, Hillary Clinton) is preferable doesn’t follow. Hillary Clinton has never contemplated the invasion of another country without enthusiasm. When her husband was president, she encouraged him to be more militaristic. She supported the invasion of Iraq. She led the charge to invade Libya. And she lobbied to invade Syria. She is Dick Cheney in a pantsuit. Maybe worse. While Trump offends our sensibilities and our temperaments with his obscenities, Clinton’s combative policies have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Of the two, her obscenities are far worse. Why are smart people like Burns and Glasser so myopic? Could it be that they are so inured to the policies of Empire and the Warfare State that they can only view Donald Trump’s obvious idiocies as atrocious?

Strap yourself in, America. Hillary will be our next president, and we will soon find out where her warmongering temperament will lead us.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.