“For The Most Part”

I do not watch any of the Sunday news shows on TV. My parents liked to watch them, but they were better then, though I still did not like them much. The hosts at least were reasonably fair, though David Brinkley became even more acerbically conservative, and kept complaining about his taxes. Even so, the Sunday shows were better than what they have now, at least judging from what I read, because in trying to keep up, I do read about some of what is discussed on these programs.

It has been my opinion for years that these shows are slanted toward the Right Wing side (calling it “Conservative” Is giving it a veneer of respectability it does not deserve). It seems standard that the guests of Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” usually include one Very Far Right Republican, one Moderately Far Right Republican, one Moderate, and one Polite Semi-Liberal. The other shows may be a bit more balanced, but the stories which come out of them are always skewed to Republican talking points.

This is why, if anyone peruses the political stories of the day coming out on Sunday, they are always in the nature of themes created on Fox News, and then slightly reframed, and reiterated on the other networks. So we then see stories in the press or online media of, “Democrats under fire for…” “Republicans claim that Democrats are misleading the public about…” “Is the Democrats’ agenda in danger of failing because…” It is invariable. And it is misleading, unbalanced, irritating and frustrating, so I do not watch it. They still go on, of course, whether I watch them or not.

So yesterday, on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, they had Sarah Isgur and Donna Brazile. I have not liked Stephanopoulos since he was the major source for Bob Woodward’s slanted book about the Clinton presidency. Isgur is a Republican who recently worked as a spokesperson for the Trump Justice Department. She then was given a position as director of political coverage for CNN during the last campaign, and she continues to have a title at that network which is comparable to that.

Brazile ran the 2000 Gore campaign, which she almost lost singlehandedly, by insisting that Gore not let Clinton campaign for him. She then moved to a position in the DNC, where in 2008 she did everything she could to fix the nominating process for Obama, by disqualifying primaries in Florida and Michigan, then restoring only half the Florida delegate votes, and giving Obama some of Hillary’s Michigan delegates.

She then moved to CNN as an “analyst,’ and the internet says that she leaked debate questions to Hillary in 2016, which is ridiculous, because Hillary was the most informed debater I have ever seen, and she certainly did not need Brazile giving her questions; in addition to which, the questions were general, anyway. So after attempting to damage Hillary again, she moved to Fox news as an “analyst.’

She then wrote a book saying that the 2016 primary process was fixed by the DNC in favor of Hillary, which is ludicrous, because Hillary won 57% of the vote, and about 90% of the actual primaries. She then moved to Fox as an “analyst’ for two years, before recently leaving to work for ABC. Her career has left a trail of Democratic defeats, and scandals, all of which she somehow seems to blame on one or both of the Clintons. Do you think that Fox would have hired her as an “analyst,’ if she were not enhancing that network’s propaganda? Do a cursory internet search of “Donna Brazile,” and you will see numerous citations by radical right sites, saying, “Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile, accuses the DNC; blames Hillary Clinton.” She is one of the Far Right’s best assets, whatever her motivations might be for that.

So then, but of course, there they both were on the ABC Sunday news show. How did ABC think that they would contribute any fair and rational insight? Or do they not want that? And Isgur said that, “For the most part, the Mueller report exonerated Trump.” And Brazile nodded her head in apparent agreement. Of course Isgur, who worked at the Justice Department where Attorney General Barr lied about and misrepresented the Mueller Report, was going to also lie about what was in that report. Brazile being there and nodding, just gave the lie more credence.

There is nothing that we can do about this dreadfully biased and inaccurate reporting and so-called analysis, which repeats itself on virtually every Sunday news show. However, it did cause me to consider the idea of “mostly,’ and “for the most part,” and think about some other examples. which Isgur or others might want to use.

For the most part, the Hindenburg blimp had a safe trip.

For the most part, the Manson Family cult did not spend their time killing people.

The stock market mostly was up for the day during the sessions in 1929.

For the most part, the White Sox played to win during the 1919 season.

Bernie Madoff, and Justice Wargrave in “And Then There Were None,” for the most part had honorable careers.

Sam Spade and Brigid O’Shaughnessy mostly had a good time together.

The hare mostly led the tortoise in the race.

For the most part, the Borgias did not poison people at their dinners.

The 1950’s quiz shows were mostly not fixed.

Trump is mostly a sane and caring person. Actually, that is a complete lie, as he is not sane, and he cares about nothing but himself. But since Isgur calmly and completely lied about the Mueller report, she might as well go all the way and lie about everything else. After all, no one on the shows is going to stop her.Turn them off, go home, it’s just Sunday news programs, Jake.