Below you will find charts, graphs and links. Click to view sources.

They speak for themselves so my notes are brief:


Times each candidate was mentioned on television. I’ve removed most candidates for clarity:


Look just before 10/12/16. That is almost a full week after the Trump tape was released.
It also happened to be the day of the first Project Veritas video. I believe these videos speak for themselves. Not to mention, democrats did take action with firings and Robert Creamer’s resignation. However, even if you are anti-O’keefe (which you shouldn’t be), the timing and lack of coverage is suspicious.

Times each candidate was mentioned by network:


If nothing else, the first two graphs should make it clear there’s only two candidates. Because it’s a two-party system? No.



Because it’s required by the Constitution? No. It’s not because we fit neatly into one of two
political parties. Why aren’t there just two religions? Or two words? Two journalists?
negativityTwo locations designated for protest?
The above-left chart displays how the msm spent more time covering what they called a non-issue (health) than the email server that has been reopened just ten days before the election; or the foundation that is now receiving widespread, bi-partisan calls for dissolution. The tables on the right illustrate msm bias.  Compare airtime to instances of negativity.


Trump only has himself to blame? In the above-left chart, the seventh most talked about controversy is The Clinton Foundation, which concerns: mistreating women (money from Saudi Arabia, among others), email server, tax issues, flip-flops (TPP, among others), rigging (DNC, Bernie), Benghazi, feud with Smith family (Benghazi mom), Russia, dangerous rhetoric (religion, race, etc.,), health (“not right in the head yet”). Nearly every alleged “Trump” scandal applies to Clinton. Not to mention, birtherism rumors were started in 2008 by the Clinton campaign. Whether it was Clinton, Clinton staffers or Clinton supporters is unknown.
In the video below, Jake Tapper admits it. He puts the CNN swerve on it. But it’s there. The real information starts at about 1:10. Pay attention to the end. Jake tries to get tricky:

The way it ends compares the Trump/Clinton positions and says untrue. Listen to how Jake characterizes Trump’s claim.
However, Trump’s claim was “Hillary started it” and … her campaign did. Jake’s conclusion defies itself.




Msm coverage turned something Hillary started into a Trump scandal without ever really asking Hillary about it. Of course, Trump didn’t help himself. Look at the comparison on the left. Trump’s fault? Ok. How about top-right? You think the msm forgot to report wikileaks? Or is it possible they used


an eleven-year-old video for distraction and manipulation while the other candidate’s dream of dissolving American borders and certain economic protections went unreported? Not to mention the grave smithkhanchartConstitutional implications of a dream like that.
Still all Trump’s fault? Even when you consider the intentional mischaracterization of the “Access Hollywood Tape” as an admission of sexual assault? Really? Look at the bar graph on the right. It compares network coverage of the Smith/Kahn convention speeches. Both parents lost children during official business. Both candidates attacked the parents. Was Trump’s response to an obvious, political stunt fifty-five times worse than calling Pat Smith a liar … after lying to her face?.
It becomes clearer why we only have two candidates when you look at the images below. The pie chart on the right includes Trump’s sixteen competitors. Look how close he came to seventy percent of the coverage. Why? Because he was craziest? Because he was the most profitable to cover? Or because he was pushed on us? Whatever it was, our press was negligent.



Freedom of press exists to keep government honest, not to create profit or propaganda and certainly not presidents.
What would’ve happened with even coverage? I bet we’d be talking about the issues.
Instead, we speculate on faulty premises intended to distract. We fall hard for it and fight with each other about which of us is racist or misogynistic. We accept the security afforded by lack of choice. We suspend our skepticism just long enough to preserve our cocoonish paradigms for another four-year slumber. But what if we knew it wasn’t inevitable? What if we knew it was being done to us?
And for all you third-party buffs:


It is important to note at this point that the truth knows no nationality.

If you consider everything above wikileaks’ tweets, then wikileaks’ claims aren’t that ridiculous. Like the ‘pied piper’ the msm pushed us to one of two primary candidates. In the general election, we’ve been funneled to one.
Look at Trump coverage in the primary. The msm acted dumbfounded. It couldn’t understand it. It just kept its cameras rolling. Once the only person in the world-Hillary was capable of beating-won, everything changed.
Ever since Trump’s nomination, the msm has been openly trying to destroy him. It’s not because they despise him; it is necessary for Hillary to win. Moreover, Trump is a direct threat to the establishment.

Download the PDF link and read the memo.
Times mentioned online by candidate:


How does comparing these three images to their television counterparts up top make you feel about your press?



Perhaps what is most shocking about these two pie charts is how the online version fairly represents msm coverage of democrats; whereas, the coverage of republicans is dramatically different.Trump plummets twenty-five percent.
Still think half the country is racist? Or does that number drop a little? Still think half the country wants a wall? We don’t. We just want to keep our constitution. We just want to end the corruption and collusion; or, at least reset it. It’s not that we believe Trump will do it. We just know Hillary won’t.



Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *