Message to Hillary: Give your supporters hope.

The Obama message in 2008:   Hope and Change

Hope and Change are still good themes.   Americans elect presidents hoping that they will change things for the better.  That includes hoping the candidates will change enough to fix the things about themselves that the voter doesn't like.

Trump reset:  Maybe it will work.

Hillary needs to watch out.   Trump is attempting--and sort of accomplishing for 48 hours so far--a personality change.   He is trying to show he can be nicer, more presidential, less a bully, not a racist.   For the moment he is kinder, gentler.   He said he was sorry if he caused pain.

People won't believe it unless he can maintain the new character, but people who are half-tempted to vote for him, but are legitimately concerned that he is a bull in a china shop, are looking for some slender thread of evidence that gives them hope. They might take a chance that Trump will act grown up, more presidential, not say really stupid mean racist things and start a war.   Trump is trying to give people hope.   

It is hard to change a personality when one is 70 years old, or a well established brand like Trump's, but his effort to show he can change just might work, and Hillary needs to watch out because  then he would become a very plausible candidate.

Now it is Hillary Clinton's turn.  She needs to give her supporters--both committed and wary--some hope.  People need to hope Hillary will change.

Hillary needs to make a dramatic break with some big parts of the past.  She doesn't have to say she is "sorry" and certainly need not say she is "guilty" or "wrong."  But she cannot just tinker around the edges.   She needs to say and show that the "old Hillary" is past.   The Clinton Foundation is a perfect opportunity.

She needs to shut it down.   Being president and First Spouse is a big enough job and a sufficiently big portfolio that one does not need a side-job.  One does not need a billion dollar foundation to fill in the empty holes in a life otherwise unfulfilling if one is living in the White House.

Suggestion to Hillary Clinton:  Shut down the Clinton Foundation, period.  Give all the money to the Warren Buffet Foundation and tell him to do his best and not tell you what he is doing.

Complicated Arrangement.  

Another Suggestion to Hillary Clinton:   Give away all your money.   That's right.  All of it.  No need to save out for yourselves, for Chelsea, for the two grandkids.   You and they will be fine.   Chelsea can always write a book and give speeches on the legacy of the Clinton years.   She will have lots of money, and the grandkids will always be the grandchildren of presidents.  They will be fine.  Give away your house, all the money you have earned, every bit of it.    You don't need money.  You will live in the White House.   You will be taken care of.   After the White House--if you are still alive--you can write another book or give a few speeches and make more than enough money.   You don't need what money can buy.   You need what having money keeps you from buying: credibility in expressing that you have understanding and empathy for regular Americans, and documentation that you are in politics for the service not the money.

There are stories--apocryphal stories--that First Class passengers on the Titanic attempted to take their gold with them when they jumped into the water to the life rafts reserved for them.  They sank, weighted down by the gold in their pockets.  Don't be one of those people.

Show you can change.   If Trump can do it, you can do it.

The act of giving away your money and shutting down the Clinton Foundation would demonstrate to the public that your head is in the game of being president and representing the people of America, period.  No distractions and no conflicts.  It is not one of two jobs, the presidency and the Foundation, it is the job.  Nothing the Clinton Foundation could do would have a fraction of the influence of what a Hillary Clinton presidency might do, especially a presidency less hounded by investigations and hearings and charges and implications and op-ed pieces all claiming that you are conflicted between public and private, the presidency and the Foundation.

Voters don't like the notion of "pay-to-play".  So she should not do it.

Shut it down and walk away. 

Give your supporters hope.  They cringe at the thought of four or eight years of House hearings and investigations and sworn statements.   Of lawyerly resistance to Freedom of Information Act requests, and depositions, and allegations of conflicts, and denials of conflicts.    Of more examples of the Clintons skirting as close to the law as possible.   

Give people hope.  Give people change.  Walk away from it, Hillary.   Walk to the White House.

Kinder, Gentler Trump

Trump is adjusting his brand.   Trump is New and Improved!

Marketers understand this.  Consumers experience it.    Brands have power.  And sometimes the contents of the brand needs to change.

I am experiencing this with my melon crop.  Consumers know what it means to be a "cantaloupe."   A Tuscan style cantaloupe is enough like the more-familiar cantaloupe that people try the newish-but-still-cantaloupe, and prefer it.  (It has richer flavor and a sturdier netting so it holds up better in transport.)  People accept them.  They think they know them: a cantaloupe.  They buy them.  

 Local melon shoppers don't know canary melons or Santa Claus melons so they don't try them, so they sit unsold.   You can see a mix of the three melon types in this photo of them on my wash-stand.   The Tuscans have the "cantaloupe" beige color, but with dark green ribs.  The canary melons are canary yellow; the green one my hand is on is the Santa Claus.  I can give away the new melon varieties--which are stunningly wonderful, and friends I hand them to discover they love them--but stores cannot sell them.   Cantaloupes have a brand--an expectation of what it means to be a cantaloupe-- which can be extended to include Tuscan style melons.   But the notion of "cantaloupe" only extends so far, and it doesn't include the other two.

"Cantaloupe" includes the ribbed Tuscan melons, but not the others.

Trump is keeping Trump brand, but extending it--not destroying it.

We know the Trump brand: denunciations of stupid, incompetent predecessors and political rivals, spoken in harsh terms, with simple blunt words.  America should use "extreme" tactics, should do so "viciously", should torture suspected enemies, assassinate enemy family members, imprison Hillary, deport millions, monitor Muslims.  The Trump brand presents a policy of authoritarian nationalism on behalf of the traditional American tribe of native born whites and a tone of harsh belittling treatment for those not included.

Breitbart Story: Pivot to Humility

Trump is doing two things simultaneously with hiring a new campaign team.   He is stepping up his harsh scorched earth criticism of Obama and Hillary Clinton--a straightforward affirmation of his brand.   He is simultaneously showing a "New and Improved!" version of  himself, which may provide better appeal to white educated women, a group he is currently losing badly to Hillary and a group he must recapture if he is going to win the election.   Trump wins among white voters and especially white men without college degrees.   He loses among educated white women.

I observe among that group of people a strong sense that Trump fails the "presidential" test.  He is too blue collar, masculine, rough.   But Trump is trying to pivot.
  

   **Trump admitted he spoke too harshly and said he regretted doing so.  He is sorry.

   **Trump visited Louisiana and its flood victims and did the head-of-state work of consoling the victims of tragedy.  Empathetic Trump.

  **Trump spoke to the problems of poverty of "African-Americans"--a group he had previously used as a foil to push against, not for-- and said his presidency would assist them, and he wanted their vote.  Trump isn't racist, see?   You don't have to be racist to vote for Trump.

What is Trump doing?  He is doing what he needs to do.   

Trump apologizes for having been mean, which is itself a news story.

He is preserving his brand, denouncing Obama and Hillary in the strongest terms, while simultaneously extending the brand so that it appeals to a wider audience,  presenting himself as someone empathetic--a kinder, gentler Trump.  The new Trump gives GOP voters skeptical of Trump a basis for thinking their earlier judgement was too fast, that Trump is capable of change and therefore they could dare vote for him hoping Trump would grow into something they would like.   

Trump shows he is a caring person, not just a harsh one.

Trump is showing a "feminine" side: loving mom, not just dad holding a paddle for spanking.  He is still the strong, masculine authoritarian no-nonsence leader, but he cares about the people in his tribe.

New!  Now with the option of Cranberries!

Trump is expressing the Trump brand extension in a speech and the Trump oriented media and is assisting Trump in getting the word out.   There are skeptics that Trump can stay on this new message, but that makes the extension of the message all the more newsworthy.  Serious people sit at round tables on cable news shows and discuss Trump's ten-word semi-apology. Trump can be nice!  Can it last?   Can Trump stay nice?  Does he really mean it when he says he wants to help black people?  Can Donald Trump both be mean and nasty and also be nice to some people?  Keep watching for breaking news of Trump being nice.  Or keep watching for breaking news of Trump reverting back to being nasty-only.  Trump is a master at manipulating the media.  

Trump is preserving his brand while extending it.   Trump is still Trump, the familiar trusted Trump, denouncing incompetence, corruption, losers, foreigners, and especially Obama and Hillary.   But now with a great new feature.

Guerilla Tactic: Humiliate Trump

A Trump statue has appeared in five US city parks.   Fat.  Ugly.  Tiny penis.

The statue is the effort of Indecline, an anarchist/humor group, to have fun at the expense of Donald Trump by posting a grotesque lifelike statue of Donald Trump, overweight and sagging with soft fat, naked with a tiny penis hidden within blonde pubic hair, and no testicles.

Indecline issued a statement:  "Unlike the statues, it's our hope that Donald Trump, our modern day Emperor of Fascism and Bigotry is never installed in the most powerful political and military position in the world. These fleeting installations represent this fleeting nightmare, and in the fall, it is our wish to look back and laugh at Donald Trump's failed and delusional quest to obtain the presidency."


Photos and a story have gotten around in the mainstream media and liberal-oriented websites. The Fox News story described the removal of the statue.   The story was amplified by a comment from a New York Parks official, which gave some official approval to the notion that it was laugh at Trump: "NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small." 

This could backfire.   

Trump is the one branded the bully.  Trump is the one who joyfully humiliates.  Trump is the big man on top--the winner--who rubs into the dirt the noses of Weak Jeb, Lying Ted, Ugly Carly, Zero Graham.  

People like seeing bullies be brought down to size and the self-important emperor being made a fool of.   The slogan on the statue, that Trump "has no balls" alludes directly to the story of the emperor having no clothes, his being deluded by public adoration into thinking he wore beautiful--but nonexistent--clothes.

So what is the downside?    White resentment at being picked on.  

By any rational measure of bullying versus being bullied Trump is more the perpetrator than victim.  Right?  Trump is the bully.  He does 99 percent of the mean stuff.  Rubio's brief effort at teasing Trump back simply served to weaken Rubio, not damage Trump, except insofar as it revealed that Trump cannot resist rising to every bait thus going on television to defend the size of his "hands", i.e. penis.  

It will be dangerous for Hillary if the statues seem to come from her or are sanctioned by her in the least.  Trump's supporters and potential supporters among white less-educated voters are very quick to see "reverse discrimination" and criticism they consider unfair.  His voters feel picked on and unappreciated. They feel that affirmative action and encouragement of diversity are attacks on them.  They feel blacks, Hispanics, and women have it really easy--way easier than whites and especially white men--enjoying a tailwind of benefits and benign customs and that "normal people".  White men, have it tough--much tougher than blacks.

-------This phenomenon was joyfully sung about in 1959, in the Charlie Brown song: 

   Who's always writing on the wall?

   Who's always goofing in the hall?

   Who's always throwing spit balls?

Answer:  Charlie Brown.  And his response is: "Why is everybody always picking on me?"

Two minutes of fun music: Click here : "Why is everybody always picking on me?"----------

This morning on the Fox News morning show a twelve year old girl who returned from a hunting trip with photos of a trophy giraffe, wildebeest, a zebra, and other animals received critical comments on her Facebook page.   The Fox approach to the story was to upbraid her critics for their vulgar and upsetting criticism.  She was the victim of violence.  She was the sweet and innocent party, just minding her own business.   The theme of the news piece was that the politically correct and privileged elites were picking on the normal, innocent people, just doing what they have every right to do, the wholesome and legal sport of collecting African trophy animals.   Why is everybody always picking on her and people like her?

(Twelve year olds shooting African trophy animals is, in fact, legal.   It is not un-controversial  and it could be predicted to draw criticism, but it is legal.)

This could be great for Trump.   Or he could blow it.

If Trump acknowledges the statues and either defends himself or upbraids the artists then he will have once again re-affirmed the thin-skin-crazy-Donald meme, which would be disastrous for him.  The accusation is that Trump is easily distracted by silly things, especially personal slights and insults.    This might bait Trump.   This could be a home run for the Clinton side if Trump self-destructs.

Can Trump ignore this insult?

But the statues are unquestionably mean, insulting, and intended to humiliate Trump.   People are laughing at him.    Trump could become an object of sympathy.  This falls into the narrative of normal people--i.e. white males--being picked on, by the mainstream media, by the Hollywood types, by the self styled cultural elites, by women, blacks, Hispanics, all the privileged people who have money and power and education and the benefit of affirmative action.   

Overweight white men will look at the grotesque image of Donald Trump and think it is unfair, that Trump is chubby but not that fat, that Trump is being picked on.  It will confirm, regarding political name calling and bullying,  that "both sides do it" so Trump's behavior isn't unique, it is "only fair", and equivalent to what Trump dishes out, therefore normalizing Trump's behavior, excusing it, and making it fair and balanced, not "crazy."   That would undermine the Hillary Clinton narrative, and that would be the backfire.  It would further solidify the Trump mood of resentment: white people are under unfair attack and are being picked on unfairly.

Trump understands the Charlie Brown of the song:   I didn't do anything.   I was just minding my own business, being normal.  "Why is everybody always picking on me?"

Political judo: poaching the other side's voters

It is probably smart to mess with your opponent's coalition.   Trump and HRC are both doing it.

Donald Trump included in his scripted foreign policy speech in Ohio a bit of the same idea he voiced in his big speech at his nominating convention: the notion that Hillary's tolerance for and inclusion of Muslims means she is hurting women and the LGBTQ community.

Article in LGBTQ Nation Website

Hillary has her coalition of the discriminated-against.   Trump has his coalition, focused around people loyal to the GOP brand even as the contents of the package changed, plus an extra dollop of white males without a college degree of both parties.  Trump has a majority coalition, perhaps, barely, but he needs blue collar working class Democrats and Independents to cross over, and he needs some erosion from Hillary Clinton's coalition.

GOP formula: America vs. Islam

One elegant solution for Trump and Republicans generally is to pit part of Hillary Clinton's coalition against another part.  The key villain for Trump is not immigrants, it is Muslims and Islam.  Vilifying immigrants has backlash: Hispanic citizens vote and they have immigrant relatives and friends.   There are enough American Muslims for them to be scary, but not enough to be a meaningful voting bloc. 

So Trump points to Hillary Clinton's tolerance for and inclusion of Muslims as an attack on American values and a piece of the coalition: women and gays.   Smart strategy, probably.  The "Clash of Civilizations" notion is a familiar idea and GOP voters are comfortable with it.

Marco Rubio's campaign ad on the War of Civilizations reveal the judo nicely in 30 seconds.  Islam is bad because the women in one small Muslim-majority country  (Saudi Arabia) aren't allowed to drive cars.  The fact that this country is an ally in our fight against ISIS, and the fact that the country is an exception, and the fact that we maintain good relations with them and that America and Europe imports oil from them is not mentioned.  The fight is Christianity vs. Muslims.   30 Second Ad

The psychological base for the GOP is to reaffirm American identity with walls, borders, loyalty tests, and symbols of patriotism and affinity.   Americans are inside the tent so someone has to be outside the tent.   Muslims are it.   Trump can be muddled a little on women, on Hispanics, on blacks, on immigrants, so his talk on those issues have become more nuanced and moderate.  But he is still clear on Muslims:  they are dangerous outsiders.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is going after a longtime piece of the loyal-Republican coalition, the national security hawks.   She has located some 50 Republicans active in national defense and has them say Donald Trump cannot be trusted as Commander in Chief.     These 50 officials include a former Republican governor and Cabinet Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge.  This is no knockout blow to Trump, but it puts some dissonance into the Trump coalition and claim that he is the one to "keep America safe."

These judo moves have risks for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.   You cannot make an inroad into the others' camp without messing with your own brand.

You cannot trust some commanders.  Custer's men learned that.

Hillary's coalition includes peace-oriented Democrats who supported Obama previously and Sanders recently, but now that the primary is over HRC can remind the world that she is not the patsy pushover to terror that Trump claims she and Obama are.   Still, these voters don't want to see Hillary-the-hawk, even if she is less threatening than Trump.   They always have Jill Stein to divert to.   Similarly, Trump's Christian values voters don't want to see Trump showing respect and validation for gays.  Still, Muslims and their Sharia law is more scary than "the homosexual agenda" so he can take the risk.

Do either of these judo moves do any real good?   Are women or the LGBTQ community seduced back into supporting Trump, figuring that Hillary is not really all that supportive?   And are voters with a pro-military cast of mind seduced into supporting Hillary over Trump?  I have no data, but I have a suspicion.  It gives some voters a mental toe-hold to do what they may deep-down want to do.  It gives a Republican woman a reason to think that Trump isn't so bad or Hillary so good.  And it gives some military-oriented men reason to think that maybe a reckless hard-charging devil-may-care commander like Trump might just get a bunch of soldiers killed.

Political coalitions are leaky.   People vote for a variety of reasons weighing their political interests and affections in multiple directions.   Politicians want their brand to be strong enough that they hold onto the people that like their brand, but they also want the votes of people who want the brand to be different.   

And that is what we are seeing.   Trump wants the male "women-have-all-the breaks" vote and the female vote.   Hillary wants the peace vote and the votes of military people who can be encouraged to doubt Trump.

Hillary Clinton's Mandate

Hillary Clinton--if she wins--won't have a mandate for legislative change.   She will have a mandate not to be Trump.

So what?

The news is awash with stories that are too confusing to understand or summarize that link Hillary Clinton to the Clinton Foundation to the Secretary of State to speech-making to access.    I don't know if there are any specific links or formal quid pro quo that would rise to illegality.   What I do know is that the conservative media will assert it strongly as settled fact and that the mainstream media will mumble about it and dismiss it as untrue.

It probably won't matter.   Why?  Because what is obvious to anyone is that Hillary was an adept practitioner in the pay-to-play world of political power and access.  Hillary supporters know this about her and support her anyway.

Hillary has a defense.  It isn't to deny pay-to-play revolving door politics and fundraising and special donors.   It is to pull Donald Trump into the same Tar Pit.  Donald Trump can claim he knows it is sleazy, that he was a practitioner of it, but now wants to reform it.   Trump is no Bernie Sanders.   Trump, like Hillary, has to be in the morass if he wants to campaign.  He needs the RNC and its donors.  He needs SuperPACS.   He cannot condemn the very people and process that allows the RNC and his Senate supporters to survive.   And his top staff make the vivid proof of Trump's lack of purity.  His former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski when fired moved directly to Fox News, a revolving door that circled within one news cycle,  and by Lewandowski's successor Paul Manafort, who allegedly got some $12 million in cash for helping Ukraine--or Russia; the actual facts don't matter because what matters is that the Clinton campaign is asserting equivalence and dark cash money from more-or-less Russia looks sleazy and corrupting.

Even Fox version admits poll problem

Hillary's real defense against Trump is Trump's behavior.   Trump is erratic and newsworthy and interesting.  He lacks caution and self-discipline--two traits that are essential in a president.   Hillary's ads and speeches focus on Trump.  Hillary isn't Trump.

Trump has just today extended the Trump-is-crazy meme.   He has announced another campaign shakeup, demoting the new manager, Manafort, who pushed the notion of reset and discipline, and installing a free-spirited pugilist.  

Liberal media says "crazy"

The only apparent policy choice that partisans can point to with assurance is that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would certainly choose different Supreme Court judges.  Republicans asserted that the new president should have the right to name the judge to fill the vacancy.  If Republicans control the Senate then that story will change to "the new president has the right to nominate but the people have spoken on the Senate and we retain the right to advise and consent and we demand a conservative."

But aside from the Supreme Court nomination what real issue would Hillary have advocated for whose passage would have the mandate of popular election?   Does yes or no on student loan refinance hand on this election?   If Hillary Clinton is elected is there a clear mandate for Wall Street reform or re-regulation?  Is there any greater chance of immigration reform under President HRC than under Obama?

I do not see any changes under HRC other than filling the Supreme Court with a moderate or liberal to replace Justice Scalia.   The primary meaning of a Hillary Clinton election is that Trump is not elected.

For a great many Americans that will be a relief and enough.  

Trump: "Viciously if necessary, viciously if necessary."

Trump promotes solidarity of our tribe.

Trump is appealing to his base, and the "base" means more than the identity of "white Christian identity" although it includes that group.   It is more accurate to say that his base is not racial, it is psychological.  

Liberals are different from conservatives.   Jonathan Haidt has written, and in a Ted talk, spoken about the different values of liberals and conservatives.   Liberals and conservatives are similar in considering caring and fairness and reciprocity to be important and moral. (The Golden Rule speaks to this: be as good to others as as you would want them to be to you.)

Liberals and conservatives both care about being fair, but conservatives have three additional senses of morality: in-group solidarity, respect for authority, and preserving purity and sanctity.     

Liberals have bumper stickers that say "Question Authority" and "Co-exist".   Conservatives have bumper stickers that say "America, love it or leave it" and a flag decal.

Haiti gives a very fast paced, amusing, and brief Ted talk.  It explains his notion of those additional moral values that shape the difference between people attracted to an authoritarian personality like Donald Trump's versus people who are put off by him:

Jonathan Haidt Ted talk

Donald Trump's formal (i.e teleprompter assisted) speech in Ohio yesterday is a textbook example of appeal to the moral values of conservatives.   Not just less-educated white voters, but people of a conservative cast of mind.  

He appealed to group solidarity: "Pride in our history and our values... should be impressed upon all those who come into our society and want to join our society. Our system of government is the best in the world, and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it... Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country, of which there are so many."

He appealed to purity and sanctity:  "To accomplish a goal you must state a mission: The support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one."

He appealed to respect for authority: "Our system of government is the best in the world, and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it... Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country, of which there are so many. We have a divider as president, it is the thing he does best."

And he appealed to the notion of punishment and disapproval as a way to enforce those values:   "The support networks for radical Islam will be stripped out and removed one by one, viciously if necessary.  Viciously if necessary." Click here for short clip of Trump

Some of my readers will watch Trump and be appalled.   Others will feel general approval, that Trump is talking plain sense, that America--our team-- is being threatened by outsiders and disloyal insiders who must be located and removed.   This appears to be a difference in politics but at its source it is a difference in psychology.   Are novel things welcomed or disliked?  Do we like diversity or is diversity watering down and corrupting the specialness of America?

Trump knows whose side he is on: our side.  The side of "regular" Americans, the people who dislike and are suspicious of outsiders, the ones comfortable with being vicious against outside threats because those threats corrupt the purity of our group.

Trump could have been on solid political ground.  There are a great many people in this or any society who share conservative values.   His problem was that he may well have drawn his team too narrowly, seduced by the GOP primary electorate.    He pushed outside of his tent of inclusion too many people who belong inside it: women, Hispanics, blacks.   People in those groups spank their misbehaving children.  They are patriotic, salute the flag, call people "sir", go to church, respect the police.   But Trump pushed them outside his tent of inclusion.  This was a big mistake.   

And Trump's personal style causes dissonance.  He is openly disrespectful of some people who are symbols of patriotism and sacrifice for the inside group.  McCain, for example. People did not see the Khan family as outsiders invading the group.   They saw them as insiders protecting the group.   Trump tried to show they were outsiders, making his response to the Khans about their being Muslim and Mrs. Khan perhaps having been silence.   Trump miscalculated.  In the case of the Khans most people see their son as a patriot first and Muslim secondary, and the parents as good people who sacrificed dearly.

Americans may well be ready to express their fear of Muslims and to treat them as a group with suspicion and viciousness.  Trump probably has a majority of Americans open to his talk of dangerous-Muslims.  Polls show a great many Americans consider Muslims "outside."   But Trump swept with too broad a brush when he included into the excluded group women, Hispanics and blacks.  That was too much and too many.   He pushed away some of his own.

Different news sources: There isn't even Overlap.

I read the news today, oh boy.

And depending on the news source, you got an entirely different view of the world.  I realize that this is not a new subject, and a casual viewer with a remote control device in hand realizes there is a lot of difference between MSNBC and Fox.   We get it.

But a quick look at some classic news sources this morning reveal that this is not simply a matter of emphasis, the placement of one story above another.   Instead there are two very separate realities.  There isn't even overlap. 

Mainstream news.   

First, the news as shown by what I have long considered normal, authoritative news sources: NBC, The NY Times, Washington Post, and a liberal news aggregator the Huffington Post. These are the "Mainstream Media", a term used derisively by Trump, by people on talk radio, and by Fox.

New York Times:   Top story on the upper left is the story revealing that Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort,  received secret cash of some $12 million, which is linked to the one foreign policy change the Trump campaign made to the foreign policy plank of the Republican platform.  There is a teaser lead to the op-ed page urging Trump to release his tax returns.   Nothing about Hillary Clinton.

The New York Times, August 15, 2016

The Washington Post has a story on an Obama administration contract, then an article on Trump's inexperience causing him to blow the campaign, another critical of Fox News.

Washington Post, August 15, 2016

The standard middle of the road cable news network CNN has an article on the Trump campaign then one on the Ukraine cash given to Manefort of the Trump campaign and a comment by Democrat Vilsack on how Democrats can win rural voters.

CNN, 5:00 a.m. August 15, 2016

The Huffington Post makes the Ukraine cash the front and center headline and story:

Huffington Post, 5:00 a.m. August 15, 2016

Conservative News:

Meanwhile, Fox News has nothing whatever about the Ukraine cash to Trump campaign manager Manafort.     I cannot find a story anywhere on its website, even deep within it.  

It's lead story refers to an investigation of Clinton potential mis-deeds and her email server:

Fox News, 5:00 a.m. August 15, 2016

The Washington Times is the overtly Republican and conservative alternative to the Washington Post.   Its lead story depicts a black man (Obama) apparently kissing a white woman (Hillary Clinton) amid talk of scandal, with a secondary story "Obama gets briefing on violence in Milwaukee, then goes golfing":

Washington Times, August 15, 2016

Rush Limaugh's website leads with the "Clinton Crime Family Foundation":

Rush Limbaugh website 5:00 a.m. August 15, 2016

Conservative news aggregator Breitbart.com is a conservative equivalent to the Huffington Post.  There is nothing about the Trump problem but its front page is all negative-Clinton stories:  Illegal aliens voting for Clinton,  the Milwaukee riots, Trump remaining true to himself in his campaign:

Breitbart.com 5:00 a.m. August 15, 2016

My summary and observation:  The news media is as polarized as the two political parties.  They do not confront each other; instead they talk past each other.   It helps explain the public disdain for the news.  People who routinely read and watch one version of the news but who are exposed to the  other version cannot help but think that there is bad, unfair, slanted news being pushed.    Is there an actual fair and balanced news source.   What about NPR?

NPR does not confront the partisan divide.  It avoids it.  There is noting on either Clinton problems or Trump's.    Their lead stories are on the Olympics and the Milwaukee disturbances.