Note: This is not a PR piece for Trump. Rather the media’s coverage between Trump and Hillary makes the most telling example of media bias and how they successfully sell a lie.

We’ve all heard the joke: “How can you tell if Hillary is lying? Her mouth is moving.”

The truth of the matter is all politicians lie to some extent; it’s just that Bill and Hillary seem to lie about everything while having a better PR team (the liberal media) than others do. Whether it’s having sex with “that woman,” landing under sniper fire, or lying to the FBI, the media always finds a way to downplay the reporting or distract the public with something else.

This is not to suggest Trump’s factual inconsistencies or half-truths should be swept under the rug, only that equal exposure should be given to Hillary. In fact, Trump’s supporters were quick to condemn his demeaning comments on women. However, Hillary’s supporters (including the media) ignore her historical statements, votes, questionable actions, and outright lies by calling them “baked in.”

Not surprisingly, in a well known poll of journalists, 4 times as many identified themselves as Democrat than Republican (7% Republican vs. 28% Democrat). It’s even worse with Washington correspondents, the ones who dominate national political coverage. More than 90 percent of them vote Democrat—and an even higher percentage contribute to Democrats or liberal-leaning political action committees.

This growing bias in part explains the public’s falling trust in the mainstream media. In 1972, Gallop found that 72% of Americans had trust and confidence in the media compared to only 32% today.

Ironically, conservatives (the very group that passionately complains of liberal media bias) are partially responsible for the public giving the Clintons a pass on their lies.

A sports analogy probably best explains this phenomenon. Most Americans have been exposed to unfair refereeing or judging of athletic events. When it becomes obvious that a team, or individual, is getting preferential treatment, does the disfavored person(s) begin cheating to win? Of course not!

Everyone knows that biased referees and judges will be delighted to justify their favoritism with the intentional misconduct of the opposing team. The same is true for conservatives embellishing headlines and/or any facts.

Knowing that liberal journalists underreport the failings of their Democrat friends is NOT a reason for conservatives to exaggerate the truth in an effort to make up for blatant liberal partiality. In fact, in doing so they needlessly weaken conservative efforts.

For example: “Hillary laughed about getting charges against a child rapist dismissed” is both inaccurate and unnecessary. Hillary’s own statements provide condemnation enough!

The facts according to Hillary, and substantiated by the liberal watchdog Snopes (more about them later), are as follows:

·     Hillary was asked by a judge to defend the child rapist, but she didn’t want to try the case because she knew her tactics would make her look bad as she emotionally raped the victim to defend the accused.

·     She was worried there could be a risk of hurting her career if she told the judge no, so she took the case.

·     She portrayed the victim as having fantasized about being with older men and seeking their company for sex.

·     Seeing her daughter emotionally traumatized by Hillary, the mother asked the prosecutor to seek a plea bargain.

·     Reflecting on the case Hillary laughed about never trusting a lie detector after the rapist passed it—suggesting she believed him guilty.

By her own confession, Hillary chose to viciously attack a child instead of telling the judge no in order avoid a possible risk to her career.

Those facts should be enough to deter anyone from trusting Hillary with their welfare and the welfare of this country (and this is only one example of many). However, when viewed against the hyperbole, many just shrug their shoulders at the truth.

There is a way to sell a lie to the public, and it is to sell a bigger lie—so that when the truth actually comes out, people view “less bad” equal to “acceptable.” This is hard enough to overcome with Hillary’s media pals’ help; it becomes almost insurmountable when conservatives fall into the liberal trap of embellishment.

Clearly the scales are not evenly balanced. Fail to report at all, and you’re not a competent journalist. Underreport a conservative’s failings and the liberals use it to whitewash their favored candidate.

This is where Snopes shows their liberal bias. When conservatives exaggerate the news, Snopes reports the exact facts and pronounces it “False.” However, when there is an embellished report on conservative candidates or issues by liberals, Snopes will report it as “Partially True,” explaining how the facts were “misreported” but that there is some truth in the report.

Those using Snopes to find the facts need to understand this subtle nuance.

When going up against a stacked deck the only options are to get out of the game, or play the game better than your opponent. Attempting to stack the deck in their favor while being outnumbered 10 to 1 has been a disastrous failure for conservatives every time.

You can’t cheat a cheater!

More importantly, those seeking to discredit disreputable liberals need to play by the rules. No, the playing field isn’t level or fair, but the best chance at winning requires that you follow the rules better than ever. Conservatives need better investigative journalism, less hyperbole, and more efficient use of all the media distribution sources available.