Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #1

---

Good article which captures Holt's obvious bias.

http://heatst.com/politics/lester-holt-the-third-debater/

I would copy at least some of it and post it here but the article will no lend itself to copying. Nonetheless, it is quite good.

---

Thanks for posting. Some very interesting comments

Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #3

---

September 26, 2016, Daniel Greenfield

There were concerns that Lester Holt would be this debate's Candy Crowley. He was a good deal worse.

Every question was shaped to frame a left-wing agenda. Holt hurled numerous attacks at Trump. He only passingly offered Hillary a chance to address her emails when Trump had already brought it up.

The debate was structurally biased and Holt biased it. He repeatedly argued with Trump about the facts. Despite the ban on fact-checking, Holt attempted to debate Trump on the Iraq War and on the birth certificate. It was a disgraceful and a biased performance. It is a reminder that the structure of the debates must be changed to prevent mainstream media from dominating it.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/264314...niel-greenfield

---

" Like small boys jumping into a mud pile, media personalities had been urging each other on for weeks to abandon even the pretense of objectivity and just go after Trump. That’s what Holt did in his awkward and impotent way. And it proved to be ineffective as he quickly lost control of the debate. Holt, like the rest of his media cohort, had failed to understand that overt bias makes them less effective.

Hillary’s role in the debate was to grit her teeth and smile awkwardly, then deliver a few scripted attacks and lines that would allow her media allies to hail her as the winner. It was an easy job that she botched.

The media headlines were pre-scripted. And the same stories would have run even if Hillary had gone full Linda Blair spinning her head around 360 degrees or been devoured by a herd of wild dingoes during the debate. Here’s CNN. “Clinton puts Trump on defense at first debate.” And here’s the Washington Post. “Trump vs. Clinton: Her jabs put him on the defensive in first debate.” This is what happens when the Clinton campaign writes your stories for you. They all sound the same.

But the only thing Hillary accomplished was to remind Americans of how unpleasant, insincere, untrustworthy and irritating she was. The pathological sense of entitlement, the political narcissism, the empty promises, the hollow rhetoric and the artificial attempts to connect to people whom she clearly despised were all on display here. The lady in red had nothing new to offer, either in policy or in her attacks on Trump. Like her, it was all reruns. And it was grating enough not to bear rewatching"



Bravo Greenfield