Accuracy in Media

Accuracy in Media Editor Roger Aronoff was a guest on “Cavuto Coast to Coast” on May 16 on the Fox Business Network. The topic was the media double standard when covering the presidential candidates, a hypocrisy most notably on display in a recent New York Times article on how Donald Trump treats women.

After the Times article came out, one of the main women in their story, former Trump girlfriend Rowanne Brewer Lane, called out the Times’ reporters and said that they deceptively skewed her story negatively. “They told me several times and my manager several times that it would not be a hit piece and that my story would come across the way that I was telling it and honestly, and it absolutely was not,” Lane told Fox & Friends.

“And really, I’m not sure this is an avenue that the Times or the…Clinton candidacy wants to go down, because really [Hillary Clinton] is selling her candidacy as a co-presidency with Bill, a return to the good old days of Bill Clinton,” said Aronoff on Cavuto’s show.

Also, “This wasn’t very harmful to Trump, this whole New York Times piece,” argued Aronoff.

Whereas the Times wrote about Trump’s alleged mistreatment of women, Mr. Clinton himself has been accused of raping a woman. “And she [Juanita Broaddrick] credibly claimed that Bill Clinton raped her back in 1979, and there’s contemporaneous testimony to back that up,” said Aronoff. “And Hillary herself has said [in the] not too distant past that anyone who claims to have been raped or assaulted should be believed.”

But the mainstream media continue to advocate for a Clinton victory. This media double standard means that reporters continue to build up the Democratic candidate while seeking to undercut the support for the GOP.

“Yes, and I think their game has been thrown off its course because they [the media] were all anticipating a Republican convention that was going to be contested, disputed, brokered, whatever,” said Aronoff. “Now it’s looking like the real problems are at the Democratic convention where Bernie Sanders refuses to go away, promises to go after every superdelegate, and fight every plank on the platform.”

While this is “not the drama the media were counting on or expecting,” Aronoff said, the media will continue to support a Hillary Clinton presidency at any cost.

You can watch Aronoff’s recent appearance on “Cavuto Coast to Coast” here.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • IronChefSandwiches

    What complete and utter BS. Where to start here?

    1) That Fox “News” is bitching about bias in media is hysterical. They are nothing but right wing propaganda 24/7.
    2) Juanita Broaddrick is a known liar. Her story has changed so many times over the years. The police dismissed her claims within an hour of investigating. The woman needs psychological help. Instead, the right wing smear merchants won’t let her leave the limelight.
    3) The “mainstream” media you constantly (and inaccurately) bitch and moan about has given Drumpf approximately $10 million worth of free publicity. They have devoted more time to Drumpf than every other candidate together, BY FAR. Whining about the occasional piece that is tough on him is laughable.
    4) “Aronoff said, the media will continue to support a Hillary Clinton presidency at any cost.” Aronoff, like his bosses at Accuracy (sic) in Media, is a liar. Every BS accusation is pored over by the press and never dropped. Only in right wing nutjob-land would that be considered advocating for her election.

    AIM remains pathetic and full of BS. Well done.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    “Where to start?” That is soooo passe.

  • Mitch Hedges

    I don’t completely understand the narrative at this site. Is for anything? Or are they against everything? We’ve seen good exposes on the corrupt Russian connections Trump has here at, and we’ve seen in media how a Russian-aligned hacker hacked Hillary Clinton, we’ve seen an international information war unfold (which AIM acknowledges by posting commentary about Ion Pacepa). I’m left wondering if the site has a coherent agenda. I would think that the importance of preventing a Trump Presidency would supersede that of preventing a Clinton Presidency here. Maybe I’m just missing something and the whole purpose of the site is to be against everything. I had a lot of hope for and some of the articles I read here, but the majority of the content here is so biased and lopsided towards right wing that it ruins the credibility of the good research. Accuracy In Media, hardly. I would personally recommend against anyone using sources as citation in research due to the incoherence of the editorial perspective.

  • terry1956

    Could it be the agenda of Aim is to expose the truth as they see it although sometimes they don’t see it?
    Actually I suspect they over did the Putin/Trump connection although the connection very well may contribute to Trump’s appearing to be naive on Putin.
    Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan also appear naïve on Russia but like Obama and unlike Trump naïve on Iran, except for Pat naïve on Red China and Red Vietnam.
    Honestly a person can not say the Clintons are naive on anything.

  • Ragnar Liljequist

    Ironchefsandwiches is a circus barker of deceit. What’s your name you faithless creep?