Oops. There's failure point. You're using an article about a really narrow set of facts with limited implications to try and support a profound generalization that is totally out of proportion to what's described in the article. That is a completely out-of-control leap to be making.
And as others have pointed out "the media ignores..." is a subjective reaction, not something established by the articles, and those votes have been covered by mainstream outlets.
And the articles don't show any fraud, and they don't show anything that would change the outcome in Georgia, and they don't show anything that warrants systemic skepticism of the election writ large.
The question is whether there is large scale, organised electoral fraud. Of that there's precisely zero evidence.
So when the “mainstream” media says “there is no fraud”, they're talking about organised fraud, not small counting errors and individual voter misconduct.
That is why you choose to ask “is there _organized_ and electoral fraud?”. What about the question of whether there was enough non-organized fraud to swing the results? Seems just as important to me.
Let’s be patient until that there is an answer to these questions. From the courts please, not from YouTube, or CNN, or FOX, or John Oliver, or Tucker Carlson.
Not to mention the really weird things happening like states deciding it’s not important to verify signatures. Sure they might have passed laws before the election that makes it legal to not check signatures, but does it make it right? I don’t think so.
I don’t have a horse in this race. Don’t care for Trump or Biden. There’s other people in the world that would make much better leaders than these two, but this is all besides the point.
Here is my beef: instead of just reporting, the media is invested in producing a specific outcome.
For 5 years now they are trying their best to make Trump and his supporters into bigger idiots than they actually are.
They are trying their best to make Biden and his supporters appear more noble than they actually are.
Why was the Russia election collusion story in the spotlight for years despite flimsy evidence?
Why are Trump supporters on the other hand not allowed even a few weeks to investigate their doubts about this election without being ridiculed for doing so?
ICA 2017-01D 6 January 2017
Key Judgments
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. ...
> Why was the Russia election collusion story in the spotlight for years despite flimsy evidence?
Perhaps the most genius thing Trump ever did was re-frame the Russian interference story as "no collusion". Unfortunately many on the left are morons and got led away from the real story (Russian interference) over to the fake story (Russia-Trump collusion) which left the real story forgotten and ignored.
> Why are Trump supporters on the other hand not allowed even a few weeks to investigate their doubts
Because the "investigation" isn't being done in good faith. The complaint has its basis in the Trump playbook and not on serious evidence of organised electoral fraud. The "investigation" is clearly designed to sow permanent doubt where none is warranted.
The medium-term effect will be to make Biden/Harris considered illegitimate in the eyes of some Americans.
The long-term effect will be to lessen American confidence in elections and democracy. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but this is exactly what Russia has been trying to achieve around the world for decades.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps Trump, his brand of populism and his supporters are worthy of that caricature?
> Why was the Russia election collusion story in the spotlight for years despite flimsy evidence?
The only people who think that the evidence was flimsy are those willing to ignore the fact that there was a level of obstruction from the administration that would make Nixon blush.
> Why are Trump supporters on the other hand not allowed even a few weeks to investigate their doubts about this election without being ridiculed for doing so?
My guess: because this is playing with fire. You might not be privy to it, but the calls for violence in their various echochambers if the crapshoot for overturning the election doesn't pan out(hint: it won't) are reaching audiences well armed and with nothing better to do than to engage in stochastic terrorism.
No it hasn’t. The news shouldn’t be caricaturizing anyone. The reporting should be as faithful to reality as possible.
> My guess: because this is playing with fire. You might not be privy to it, but the calls for violence in their various echochambers if the crapshoot for overturning the election doesn't pan out(hint: it won't) are reaching audiences well armed and with nothing better to do than to engage in stochastic terrorism.
So because there exist some extremists with a particular viewpoint, nobody else should be allowed to entertain that viewpoint?
Funny because on the other side of the political spectrum there actually just recently were extremists that were not just hypothetical and they did actually go out and commit violence in order to “make their voices heard” and their viewpoint was not condemned by the media at all for doing so.