'Conservatives (accurately) perceive the media mainstream to be a de facto organ of the liberal left, and by extension, the Democratic Party. And they understand that conservative governance is absolutely impossible unless that organ is defeated or co-opted'-Joshua Trevino, Jan. 2012, reported in NY Times

.

1/22/2012, "“Conservatives (accurately) perceive the media mainstream to be a de facto organ of the liberal left, and by extension, the Democratic Party,” a post on the blog Ricochet [pay site] quoted Mr. [Joshua] Treviño [one of founders of conservative site RedState] as saying in an e-mail.

“And they understand that conservative governance is absolutely impossible unless that organ is defeated or co-opted.""...  

From Pat Caddell in 2012:

"Let me tell you something about the press: Reporters become reporters and don’t enter the political fray because, basically, they can’t stand the heat...

They have now made the decision they will control the political process. They are serving—with the hundreds of millions of dollars that the networks and these newspapers are, in effect, contributing—in-kind contributions to candidates in the Democratic Party."...

9/21/2012, "“The Audacity of Corruption,” Transcript, Accuracy in Media Conference, Speaker: Pat Caddell (Above from Q and A, following audience member #5) 
 ................. 

In Jan. 2012 in South Carolina, Gingrich was for a brief moment the hope of gagged and abused masses:

1/22/2012, "Gingrich Bets on Attack Mode Against News Media," NY Times, Jeremy W. Peters, Greenville, S.C.

"Joshua Treviño, one of the founders of RedState, a leading conservative news site, wrote over the weekend that he thinks Mr. Gingrich is channeling the suspicions that many conservatives have of the news media.

“Conservatives (accurately) perceive the media mainstream to be a de facto organ of the liberal left, and by extension, the Democratic Party,” a post on the blog Ricochet [pay site] quoted Mr. Treviño as saying in an e-mail. “And they understand that conservative governance is absolutely impossible unless that organ is defeated or co-opted.”"...

.........................

Added: Unfortunately for Gingrich, on 1/23/2012 in Tampa, the GOP primary studio audience was instructed to remain silent:














1/23/2012, image caption: "The crowd was asked to refrain from cheering and shouting during the debate." Chip Litherland for The New York Times. Tampa, Florida
......................

Gingrich's moment was permanently over:

Jan. 24, 2012, "Gingrich Threatens to Skip Debates if Audiences Can’t Participate," NY Times Caucus Blogs, Jeremy W. Peters 

"Newt Gingrich insists his fans will not be silenced. Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, on Tuesday morning threatened not participate in any future debates with audiences that have been instructed to be silent. 

That was the case on Monday, when Brian Williams of NBC News asked the audience of about 500 people who assembled for a debate in Tampa to hold their applause until the commercial breaks.

In an interview with the morning show “Fox and Friends,” Mr. Gingrich said NBC’s rules amounted to stifling free speech. In what has become a standard line of attack for his anti-establishment campaign, Mr. Gingrich blamed the media for trying to silence a dissenting point of view. 

“I wish in retrospect I’d protested when Brian Williams took them out of it because I think it’s wrong,” Mr. Gingrich said. “And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they’ve done in every debate.” 

Mr. Gingrich soared to victory in the South Carolina last week after back-to-back debates in which he took on the moderators with as much zeal as he took on his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. The audiences, which were far larger and encouraged to participate, cheered him on as he pushed back. First he lashed out at Juan Williams of Fox News for suggesting that Mr. Gingrich’s comments about blacks and welfare were offensive. Then he snapped at John King of CNN for opening the debate with a question about accusations that he had asked an ex-wife for an “open marriage.” 

Mr. Gingrich’s performance in the debate in Tampa on Monday night was far more muted. Critics noted that he seemed to be off his game. The National Journal, which co-hosted the NBC debate, compared Gingrich to “a stand-up comedian whose routine suffers without echoes of laughter egging him on.” 

Mr. Gingrich clearly noticed something was off, too. “We’re going to serve notice on future debates,” he told Fox. “We’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.”

Applause and lively audience participation have been a part of most debates this primary season, though some moderators have been more permissive of it than others. Scott Pelley of CBS News scolded a South Carolina audience for booing during a debate in November. “We will have respect for everyone on stage,” he told them.

At debates during the general election, which are governed by rules set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, the audience is told to remain silent. “No cheers, no applause, no noise of any kind,” as Jim Lehrer reminded them in 2008.

CNN, which has encouraged its audiences to be engaged but not disrespectful, will host the next debate on Thursday in Jacksonville under rules that Mr. Gingrich is likely to find more to his liking."

...........................

Comment: The media's problems didn't begin with Trump. Long before Trump came along, right of center voters were well informed about US media but helpless to do anything about what they saw as a problem for the country. Gingrich's brief moment in South Carolina in Jan. 2012 showed how badly gagged and bottled up these voters were. 

The actions of the media wouldn't stand out as much as they do if these voters had a political party behind them. The US needs two competitive political parties with distinct agendas but it has only one, the Democrats. There are no checks and balances on government. Those running the Republican Party have the identical agenda to the Democrats: open borders, extreme globalism, endless foreign wars paid for by US taxpayers, unaccountable and unmanageable central government, and massive free trade deals with separate global court systems (as NAFTA has). 

Half the electorate wants the opposite of this but they have no political party behind them and no hope of one. Getting a candidate, eg Trump, is a start but all the money in the world is focused on returning US voters to their status as global slaves who will never again get to decide who is US president. Those running what passes for the GOP would rather be the permanent minority than appeal to Republican voters, would rather see the country burn to the ground than accommodate them. They've made this crystal clear over many decades.

The term "conservative" used in the quote by Mr. Trevino at top of this post generally includes in 2018: People who insist on a thick, high wall along the entire US southern border as promised by Trump and which should've been half finished by now, Republican leaners, independent voters, America First rather than Last voters, Trump voters, former Obama voters, blue collar voters not wanted by the Democrat Party, and Republicans from habit.

If Trump wanted to, he could take over the Republican Party and make it a genuine opposition party to the Democrats. Instead, I'm guessing he wants to do as well as he can under the circumstances, not make too many waves, and leave as clear a path as possible for his daughter Ivanka to be president someday. Unfortunately for the United States and Trump voters, Ivanka's views on major issues are the exact opposite of those held by Trump voters and more line with those of George Soros.

.....................