To paraphrase Ms. Clinton's husband, I guess it would depend on your definition of a "fair shake." Hillary Clinton is an established politician who has been part of the power elite in the US since her husband was elected president in 1992, and has been in the public eye continuously since then. This constant exposure and power/influence brings with it both positives and negatives. Yes, there are many partisan opponents of Hillary Clinton that will attempt to make mountains out of every molehill. But the Clintons also have legions of defenders in high places who are willing to spin for them
To paraphrase Ms. Clinton's husband, I guess it would depend on your definition of a "fair shake." Hillary Clinton is an established politician who has been part of the power elite in the US since her husband was elected president in 1992, and has been in the public eye continuously since then. This constant exposure and power/influence brings with it both positives and negatives. Yes, there are many partisan opponents of Hillary Clinton that will attempt to make mountains out of every molehill. But the Clintons also have legions of defenders in high places who are willing to spin for them and attempt to downplay/excuse behavior that would be unacceptable for people whose last name was not Clinton (see, e.g., the recent spate of stories about how the "real problem" with a sitting Secretary of State conducting official business on a private email account was not the use of the private account, but rather, the "confusing nature" of rules regarding classified information). So for Clinton, it definitely cuts both ways: there will be times when the attack dogs come out for her when they might not for others, but Clinton also has a "spin"/sycophant network that other politicians do not.
Further, some of the complaints about the purported lack of "fairness" in media coverage have more to do with Hillary Clinton than with the press. Clinton is running for president in 2016 based upon her record; she hopes to convince voters that her experience and years of public service qualify her for the presidency. But at the same time, she laments the media's focus on "old news" such as the many scandals that dogged her family during the 1990s (most of which are self-inflicted wounds). She can't have it both ways: if her years of public service are what voters should look at, then it all comes in. In other words, Clinton--with three decades in the public spotlight--is never going to get a clean slate and favorable "getting to know you" coverage from the press that lesser-known candidates such as Bernie Sanders or various Republicans are getting right now during their first national campaigns.
In addition, as I've mentioned elsewhere, part of the reason why Clinton may get less favorable coverage than expected for a mainstream Democrat has to do with her hostile relationship towards the press. Reporters are people, too: they want to be able to do their jobs, and they want to be treated with respect. Politicians that work hard to get along with the press are often rewarded. Think back to John McCain in 2000; just by being nicer to the press and more accessible than most prior Republicans, he got coverage that bordered on reverential, including from many unexpected sources. The reverse is also true: I understand why Hillary Clinton dislikes the media, but her handling of the press is abysmal: she follows a time-honored playbook to deal with her various issues (denial, a different denial, still another denial, and then frustration that everyone keeps asking questions about "old" and "settled" issues) and does not mask her contempt for those who ask her questions. Indeed, thus far in the 2016 campaign, Clinton has gone extended periods of time without talking to any reporters. None of this helps her cause, and certainly doesn't make it likely that reporters will give her the benefit of the doubt moving forward.
I am not sure what catching a "fair shake" with the media actually means, since in the case of how Clinton is being covered it seems more a matter of what the press chooses to focuses on, rather than any sort of untruthful reporting. But it does seem fair to say that the press tends to focus more on the baggage that Clinton carries with her than on the new ideas she proposes as part of her campaig
I am not sure what catching a "fair shake" with the media actually means, since in the case of how Clinton is being covered it seems more a matter of what the press chooses to focuses on, rather than any sort of untruthful reporting. But it does seem fair to say that the press tends to focus more on the baggage that Clinton carries with her than on the new ideas she proposes as part of her campaign for president.
The press works in a predictable way--kind of ADHD in one way, since it fastens on any bright shiny new thing and makes a bigger story from it than perhaps it should be (read Trump and Sanders). It also has this tendency to perseverate, so the same old stories come round and round again. Benghazi and the emails are important, but only to a degree--and these are complicated stories, worth telling well once, rather than raking over the coals again and again. Neither episode disqualifies Clinton from being president, in my view.
The reality is that for someone who has been around as long as Clinton in so many different roles to expect "fairness" from the press is just a non-starter. Public figures get a lot of benefit from being public figures, but there are consequences to being a public figure, and one of them is that everything you have done is open to scrutiny. All is fair in love and war, and politics.
For me, as a student of these things, media coverage has seemed pretty balanced in terms of the Democrats. If some pieces of Clinton's baggage get more attention than others, perhaps that is because that is what seems likely to attract readers--a reflection of what we are interested in.
Right now, Bernie Sanders--one of my Senators, and I vote for the guy and like them--is getting a free ride from the press. That's fine--he is a new bright shiny object. And he is the real deal--a true politician, nothing false about him, except in the way that being political inevitably requires a certain amount of self-representation that can't really be seen as truly authentic.
His position on guns, for example, is carefully calibrated to his Vermont constituency--we have some of the loosest gun laws in the states. Given that its just a couple of hours from Hartford or New York to Vermont, no wonder that the guns for heroin trade ...
I don’t think most of the meida deliberately and consciously “went after” Hilary Clinton. But I do believe that in an effort to seem fair, they engaged in the fallacy of “false equivalency.” Let’s see… he made sexist remarks suggestive of his being a serial sexual assualter… but she’s been investigated by he FBI because Anthony Wiener sent her emails.
Gosh — one must be as bad as the other.
Studies of the media showed that during that campaign, Hilary’s alleged “dishonesty” was mentioned more consistently in news stories than Donald Trump’s bigoted, sexist, and racial remarks were.
Why? Again, I
I don’t think most of the meida deliberately and consciously “went after” Hilary Clinton. But I do believe that in an effort to seem fair, they engaged in the fallacy of “false equivalency.” Let’s see… he made sexist remarks suggestive of his being a serial sexual assualter… but she’s been investigated by he FBI because Anthony Wiener sent her emails.
Gosh — one must be as bad as the other.
Studies of the media showed that during that campaign, Hilary’s alleged “dishonesty” was mentioned more consistently in news stories than Donald Trump’s bigoted, sexist, and racial remarks were.
Why? Again, I don’t blame the media, at least not entirely. But I do blame the ring- wing media for an unending assuault on the Clintons. Turn on conservative talk radio. It’s an unending assault, 24 hours a day.
I also blame the media for becoming over sensitive to the constant charge of “liberal media” by the far right. The myth of the “liberal media” is the Big Lie we’ve been sold over the last 50 years, and the mainstream media bends over backwards to not seem liberal.
The truth is, the media has not had a liberal bias since the 1960s, if indeed it ever had it. I will admit ithat in the 1960s, the average newscaster was a bit more liberal on the issues of civil rights than the average American. And newscasters such as Walter Cronkite were ahead of the curve on the Vietnam War.
But that was many years ago. There hasn’t been a liberal media since then.
I know this is the longstanding Clinton narrative about the press, but the claim doesn't resonate with me. I don't think the media is out to get Hillary / is intent on being negative about her. I'd guess that many political reporters (who are predominantly left-leaning) are rooting for her and would like to see a woman as President.
I don't see why the media is out to get Hillary any more than they are out to get Jeb Bush or President Obama.
The problem really is Hillary herself. She is an ethics corner-cutter who dislikes the press and stonewalls them whenever possible. She's been running for a
I know this is the longstanding Clinton narrative about the press, but the claim doesn't resonate with me. I don't think the media is out to get Hillary / is intent on being negative about her. I'd guess that many political reporters (who are predominantly left-leaning) are rooting for her and would like to see a woman as President.
I don't see why the media is out to get Hillary any more than they are out to get Jeb Bush or President Obama.
The problem really is Hillary herself. She is an ethics corner-cutter who dislikes the press and stonewalls them whenever possible. She's been running for a while now, and yet has only responded to a handful of direct questions from reporters. Her goal is clearly to say as little as possible to mainstream reporters.
To be clear, this strategy may work for her.
Hillary Clinton has been given softball treatment for years by the media.... Her terrible stint at the state department has gone largely unquestioned by the media at the time, her actions as a Senator from NYS were largely given only puff-piece treatment...
So now, what do we have:
A very high level executive that chose to conceal her communications from the intent of disclosure laws by running her own server and domain. There is no other excuse for this. No other plausible explanation.
It's a giant breach of government ethics, even if it was technically legal. When found out, she deleted h
Hillary Clinton has been given softball treatment for years by the media.... Her terrible stint at the state department has gone largely unquestioned by the media at the time, her actions as a Senator from NYS were largely given only puff-piece treatment...
So now, what do we have:
A very high level executive that chose to conceal her communications from the intent of disclosure laws by running her own server and domain. There is no other excuse for this. No other plausible explanation.
It's a giant breach of government ethics, even if it was technically legal. When found out, she deleted half of the contents, printed out the other half and handed a pile of paper to the government, then wiped the server (and no Hillary, not with a cloth).
There are no good interpretations of her actions. At best, it's a display of absolutely terrible judgment, again and again and again. At worst, it's covering up a crime.
Hillary seems utterly confused by the whole thing, which is pretty disturbing in an era where some of our biggest national security risks are cyber... Do we want a POTUS that doesn't even understand what a cyber attack is? (Note Hillarys instance that the server was secure because it was under guard).
While democrats may not like to admit it, this is a major scandal. It's not a minor error, or a simple mistake.
It's also representative of a pattern of ethically dubious behavior on the part of Hillary Clinton. The media should be far more interested in it than it is.
Nobody prominent ever gets the media coverage that he/she wants. This is true for politicians, athletes, executives and Nobel laureates.
Take a moment to see how the whole eco-system works. People with media expertise who want to promote the prominent person's agenda eventually end up going into PR or some variant thereof. (Campaign manager, strategist, pollster, etc.) That is a big field with its own rewards.
People who stay in journalism generally focus a lot of their attention on information/perspectives that defies the PR line. Sometimes these end up being very powerful and important stories
Nobody prominent ever gets the media coverage that he/she wants. This is true for politicians, athletes, executives and Nobel laureates.
Take a moment to see how the whole eco-system works. People with media expertise who want to promote the prominent person's agenda eventually end up going into PR or some variant thereof. (Campaign manager, strategist, pollster, etc.) That is a big field with its own rewards.
People who stay in journalism generally focus a lot of their attention on information/perspectives that defies the PR line. Sometimes these end up being very powerful and important stories that change public perceptions. Sometimes they end up being weird, momentary distractions that are soon forgotten. It's all part of the process.
The answers by Ty Doyle and Marc Bodnick nicely cover the specifics of Hillary Clinton's current situation. I'm offering you the general principle.
I absolutely believe Hillary Clinton is being treated unfairly, by both the media and the public. She is being vilified by the right and the left by the most mundane, run of the mill stuff. A lot of candidates give speeches to large businesses or solicit campaign donations from wealthy donors, but she is considered corrupt by doing that. Nine Republican investigations found that she is not at fault for the Benghazi attacks, yet Republicans keep bringing that up. She used a private e-mail address for work purposes, but so did Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell. She is the least dishonest politici
I absolutely believe Hillary Clinton is being treated unfairly, by both the media and the public. She is being vilified by the right and the left by the most mundane, run of the mill stuff. A lot of candidates give speeches to large businesses or solicit campaign donations from wealthy donors, but she is considered corrupt by doing that. Nine Republican investigations found that she is not at fault for the Benghazi attacks, yet Republicans keep bringing that up. She used a private e-mail address for work purposes, but so did Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell. She is the least dishonest politician in recent memory, yet is called a liar. She still gets attacked for using the term superpredator two decades ago, when it was clearly not said with racist intent. She gets criticized for voting for the Iraq War; while it was a mistake, a lot of other Democrats did as well and she admits it was a mistake. She gets attacked by the right for merely being a Democrat, and gets attacked by the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party for being moderate.
A lot of attacks against her are also misogynistic in nature. By merely running for President she is called power hungry, which I seriously doubt anyone would say about a man running for President. She is attacked for staying with her husband after he had an affair in the White House. Her opponent criticized her for going to the bathroom during a Democratic debate, when Bernie Sanders did as well during that same debate. He said she was “schlonged” by Obama, which is both inaccurate and offensive (I think the term would only make sense if it was a landslide loss, and she actually got more popular votes). I have seen buttons describing her as essentially a chicken wing.
These Sexist Anti-Hillary Clinton Buttons Are on Sale at a GOP Conference
I think her opponent is absolutely being graded on a curve against her. She isn’t honest 100% of the time, but no politician is, and her opponent is considered a pathological liar by both sides of the aisle, yet Hillary gets called a liar more often. She is the most experienced candidate to ever run for President, but that experience is being used against her by calling her part of the establishment.
No.
An issue that receives remarkably little attention is Trump’s well documented history of criminal and unethical behavior while Hillary’s supposed criminal behavior, that has been made up by her political enemies, is front page news.
Trump is one of the most corrupt individuals to run for president in the history of the Republic and his misdeeds receive almost no media attention in spite of the fact his criminal behavior is well documented.
Here is a short list of what he’s getting away with:
- Trump’s casino bankruptcies, which left investors holding the bag while he skedaddled with their money
- T
No.
An issue that receives remarkably little attention is Trump’s well documented history of criminal and unethical behavior while Hillary’s supposed criminal behavior, that has been made up by her political enemies, is front page news.
Trump is one of the most corrupt individuals to run for president in the history of the Republic and his misdeeds receive almost no media attention in spite of the fact his criminal behavior is well documented.
Here is a short list of what he’s getting away with:
- Trump’s casino bankruptcies, which left investors holding the bag while he skedaddled with their money
- Trump’s habit of refusing to pay contractors who had done work for him, many of whom are struggling small businesses
- Trump University, which includes not only the people who got scammed and the Florida investigation, but also a similar story from Texas where the investigation into Trump U was quashed.
- The Trump Institute, another get-rich-quick scheme in which Trump allowed a couple of grifters to use his name to bilk people out of their money
- The Trump Network, a multi-level marketing venture (a.k.a. pyramid scheme) that involved customers mailing in a urine sample which would be analyzed to produce for them a specially formulated package of multivitamins
- Trump Model Management, which reportedly had foreign models lie to customs officials and work in the U.S. illegally, and kept them in squalid conditions while they earned almost nothing for the work they did
- Trump’s employment of foreign guest workers at his resorts, which involves a claim that he can’t find Americans to do the work
- Trump’s use of hundreds of undocumented workers from Poland in the 1980s, who were paid a pittance for their illegal work
- Trump’s history of being charged with housing discrimination
- Trump’s connections to mafia figures involved in New York construction
- The time Trump paid the Federal Trade Commission $750,000 over charges that he violated anti-trust laws when trying to take over a rival casino company
- Trump has been accused of pedophilia behavior and rape and Trump is now being advised by Roger Ailes, who was forced out as Fox News chief when dozens of women came forward to charge him with sexual harassment. According to the allegations, Ailes’s behavior was positively monstrous; as just one indicator, his abusive and predatory actions toward women were so well-known and so loathsome that in 1968 the morally upstanding folks in the Nixon administration refused to allow him to work there despite his key role in getting Nixon elected. Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?
There’s a simple reason Donald Trump’s opponents are ignoring his rape accusers
Yes, Donald Trump has been linked to the mob
Former Texas official says he was told to drop Trump University probe
No doubt the media is protecting Clinton and doing everything to show little positive Trump.
This is the video of 911 collapse of Clinton. It is still being viewed a lot on YouTube but not on mainstream media. If Trump had collapsed, almost did a face plant on the van, you would be seeing this video constantly over the past week in an attempt to identify Trump with ill health. Instead, the media has not addressed Clinton’s health even though she canceled another event and taking the next 6 days off before the debate. Silence, not a word from the media, everyon
No doubt the media is protecting Clinton and doing everything to show little positive Trump.
This is the video of 911 collapse of Clinton. It is still being viewed a lot on YouTube but not on mainstream media. If Trump had collapsed, almost did a face plant on the van, you would be seeing this video constantly over the past week in an attempt to identify Trump with ill health. Instead, the media has not addressed Clinton’s health even though she canceled another event and taking the next 6 days off before the debate. Silence, not a word from the media, everyone is closing ranks.
I am fine with how this is playing out as Clinton will be watched by the world for every eye-twitch and pause during the debate. The focus on the debate will be her health and not her policy positions. Can she really stay on her A-Game for 60 minutes? I doubt it. Trump on the other hand is having a ball, his message is more confident and disciplined. When compared side by side Clinton will not hold up. In trying to protect Clinton, the media has multiplied their bets. The media has nothing to lose as this is great drama to increase viewer metrics; not good for Clinton I think.
If Clinton tries to cancel, move the debate, or change the debate format it will panic everyone. She will have lied again about her health and only increase the ‘cannot trust’ numbers. She is stuck.
Only a few days to go. Yes the media is biased for Hillary and you will see it up to the debate.
From the Left:
- She's very close with Wall Street.
- She's only recently had her "Come to Jesus" moment with regard to foreign intervention, populist economics, social justice, gay marriage, and a number of other issues.
- There's something disturbing about having the wife of a former president competing against the son and brother of two others. It reeks of oligarchy.
- She's raised an enormous amount of money, and that means wealthy people have a lot of influence over her.
- She's very wealthy herself, and this isolates her from the issues that affect most Americans.
- She's very weakly pro-choice.
From the
From the Left:
- She's very close with Wall Street.
- She's only recently had her "Come to Jesus" moment with regard to foreign intervention, populist economics, social justice, gay marriage, and a number of other issues.
- There's something disturbing about having the wife of a former president competing against the son and brother of two others. It reeks of oligarchy.
- She's raised an enormous amount of money, and that means wealthy people have a lot of influence over her.
- She's very wealthy herself, and this isolates her from the issues that affect most Americans.
- She's very weakly pro-choice.
From the Right:
- She's been made into a boogeyman since the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency, and a fair number of people believe she's ordered murders and coverups.
- She supported socialized health care way before it was cool.
- She's pro-choice.
- She supports Obamacare.
- They're convinced she covered up something about Benghazi.
Definitely biased against Trump. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably the now minority that actually believes the media. 30% of Americans actually trust what the media is saying now and days. To be honest, when Trump says something “controversial” its much more likely to be on the news than Hillary Clinton saying something just as controversial.
The media is without a doubt not neutral at all. I wish they were, but its clearly not. Especially if you are watching CNN or Fox News. There are some news stations that are more for Hillary, and more for Trump than others. But there are a lot less i
Definitely biased against Trump. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably the now minority that actually believes the media. 30% of Americans actually trust what the media is saying now and days. To be honest, when Trump says something “controversial” its much more likely to be on the news than Hillary Clinton saying something just as controversial.
The media is without a doubt not neutral at all. I wish they were, but its clearly not. Especially if you are watching CNN or Fox News. There are some news stations that are more for Hillary, and more for Trump than others. But there are a lot less in it for Trump than Hillary that’s for sure.
Absolutely.. Melania is a major political figurehead. She's the first lady of our great nation. And she's a porn star. Guys jack-off to her perky tits and the shape of her ass.
I mean, what the ever loving fuck?
People have been run out of office for FAR less. It -completely boggles my mind that the far right accepted this with no more than a cringey shiver down their frigid spines.
Who are these new age right-wing people?
Where did the stick-up-the-rear people go? Have we entered the twilight zone? 👀 Republican zombies?
Me? I have no problem with her personal life choices. I've made pl
Absolutely.. Melania is a major political figurehead. She's the first lady of our great nation. And she's a porn star. Guys jack-off to her perky tits and the shape of her ass.
I mean, what the ever loving fuck?
People have been run out of office for FAR less. It -completely boggles my mind that the far right accepted this with no more than a cringey shiver down their frigid spines.
Who are these new age right-wing people?
Where did the stick-up-the-rear people go? Have we entered the twilight zone? 👀 Republican zombies?
Me? I have no problem with her personal life choices. I've made plenty of my own, and hold no judgement based on her, as a person. I even applaud her cajones. You go girl!
But this isn't just an average person. This is the first lady. Someone obviously slipped the entire Republican party a roofie, and it's conveniently wiped out the collective knee jerk reaction. We went from public scandals because of a sleeveless trunk dress (basically shapeless, not intended to be sexy.) to naked pictures of FLOTUS on everyone's cell phone.. being a normal thing. Mind sufficiently blown.
Michelle Obama's bare arms stir controversy
Soooo, logically speaking, (and I'm trying real hard to hang on to reality) she's had it incredibly easy! I'm speechless. And confused. But, hey... anyone that is famous, in today's standard, is - has- and will always be - open target for the media.
(Image source: the internet is forever)
I'd echo what Marc Bodnick had to say. Hillary is not particularly forthcoming with the press, and that means that any media outlet which is even slightly tilted right has the opportunity to speculate about all manner of unsavory things. Some of that speculation is probably true, too.
Whether her strategy of isolation from the press is wise or not remains to be seen.
However, the idea that she is not getting a "fair shake" seems like a stretch to me. In the one small area where I do have some actual expertise, the email server situation, I think that the press has been way too lenient. In my opi
I'd echo what Marc Bodnick had to say. Hillary is not particularly forthcoming with the press, and that means that any media outlet which is even slightly tilted right has the opportunity to speculate about all manner of unsavory things. Some of that speculation is probably true, too.
Whether her strategy of isolation from the press is wise or not remains to be seen.
However, the idea that she is not getting a "fair shake" seems like a stretch to me. In the one small area where I do have some actual expertise, the email server situation, I think that the press has been way too lenient. In my opinion, her judgement on the email server was so egregiously bad that should preclude her ability to serve as commander-in-chief. But, that's just my opinion, and I realize it is not widely-shared.
Media focuses on whatever Kardasian style clips will get the most viewers. Politics is totally boring and hard to follow so if there was a contest between a conspiracy to cover up Hillary’s claimed health problems versus say the NAFTA trade agreement, guess where the viewers go. 1 in 1000 is capable of understanding the nuances of a trade agreement let alone what terms of that agreement are good and for whom.
For Hillary, since she is a politician who is best on issues, she comes across poorly in the accusation hurling department despite having an endless supply of damning evidence. Sit in on a
Media focuses on whatever Kardasian style clips will get the most viewers. Politics is totally boring and hard to follow so if there was a contest between a conspiracy to cover up Hillary’s claimed health problems versus say the NAFTA trade agreement, guess where the viewers go. 1 in 1000 is capable of understanding the nuances of a trade agreement let alone what terms of that agreement are good and for whom.
For Hillary, since she is a politician who is best on issues, she comes across poorly in the accusation hurling department despite having an endless supply of damning evidence. Sit in on an 8 hour discussion of NAFTA, if you could, and you’ll see Hillary on top by a mile. Trump can only say “it’s horrible” and that is the end of his contribution but that plays well. It’s like White Hats and Black Hats. Hillary is bad and I am good. Who has the patience to take the time to look at all the boring evidencery details? Almost no one.
As a result, media will always make Hillary appear bad even though she might be the most qualified Candidate in history. I hope you can see how that works.
In spite of her being at a disadvantage in front of the media, and outclassed in name calling, the weight of evidence in her favor is so overwhelming that a careful viewer will see the pattern after a while. That takes committement to the process or reading, analyzing and making unemotional decisions about what is most likely. Some who have done this and started with a Republican bias are: Mitt Romney, Colin Powell and Mark Cuban. Super analytical thinkers who have looked at the facts on all sides and have all said that Trump would be a National disaster. That point does not seem to come across as clearly as the convoluted emotional theories that abound based on nothing but an intention to disrupt a logical process.
Of course not, the corporate media sucks, it’s not fair and proper to anyone.
For Hillary Clinton it has worked both for and against her.
A lot of the reporters are ideologically lined up towards her. But it’s like trying to do your math homework at a circus. They can’t seem to look away from the theatrics.
Today, most media is corporate, and doesn’t even try to be fair. Fox news and a few other media sources have very concentrated conservative news, and will go out of their way to make her look bad. Most other media at this point know that with the conservative core watching Fox, they have liber
Of course not, the corporate media sucks, it’s not fair and proper to anyone.
For Hillary Clinton it has worked both for and against her.
A lot of the reporters are ideologically lined up towards her. But it’s like trying to do your math homework at a circus. They can’t seem to look away from the theatrics.
Today, most media is corporate, and doesn’t even try to be fair. Fox news and a few other media sources have very concentrated conservative news, and will go out of their way to make her look bad. Most other media at this point know that with the conservative core watching Fox, they have liberal-leaning audience that includes moderates. It is in their profit-interest to keep those viewers somewhere between happy and titillated. Whatever gets viewers will trump reporters being a bit biased towards Hillary. Follow the money.
In the primary, that meant a media that was pretty highly biased towards her; in the national election, they like Hillary but they cover Trump’s carnival instead of her hard work, it’s more profitable to give him air time.
The centrist/liberal stations also like to play at being objective, which often means they refuse to call any behavior wrong, and have stumbled quite a bit with false equivalencies.
Mostly, the media sucks and doesn’t get into details, doesn’t fact check well, doesn’t call on us to engage political realities. Clinton in this whole campaign towers above everyone else (including the person I voted for in the primaries, not her) at being qualified and competent. That should be a huge thing. Her worst problem isn’t media bias, but that she wants to be president and our media has sent the reporter who covers circuses.
A media that dug into the allegations against her and could tell the real ones from the fake, and that pushed all the candidates to express the kind of nuanced understanding that a president needs, would be much, much more of an asset for Clinton than reporters who kindof like her but say “look at the clown!”
If the media was so pro-Clinton, they would be giving her more air time. They’re not. Trump gets far more time on every channel than Clinton. And that is exactly what he wants. He doesn’t care if it’s positive or negative, just like he doesn’t care if he gets the facts right or wrong. Unfortunately, he gets its wrong SO OFTEN. It sounds like bashing him only because it is fact-checking. The latest example: his statement that Scotland wanted to leave the EU. Only an ignoramus who doesn’t care what the truth is would say that. So, the media reports it, and corrects him. That’s not bashing, that’
If the media was so pro-Clinton, they would be giving her more air time. They’re not. Trump gets far more time on every channel than Clinton. And that is exactly what he wants. He doesn’t care if it’s positive or negative, just like he doesn’t care if he gets the facts right or wrong. Unfortunately, he gets its wrong SO OFTEN. It sounds like bashing him only because it is fact-checking. The latest example: his statement that Scotland wanted to leave the EU. Only an ignoramus who doesn’t care what the truth is would say that. So, the media reports it, and corrects him. That’s not bashing, that’s informing.
No, not entirely. It is one reason though. There are lots of nefarious reasons, practical reasons, hypothetical reasons, and just the way it is reasons.
Nefarious example: Voter suppression. Closing polls in Arizona, changing voter registrations, removing voters from the registry. Look them up, they happened.
Hypothetical reason example: Media blackout. Bernie Sanders barely got mentions in the first half of the campaign. I think it was by design and I won't waste my or your time trying to convince you. Had Bernie not been way under covered would he have done better? Hypotheticaly yes. Clinton
No, not entirely. It is one reason though. There are lots of nefarious reasons, practical reasons, hypothetical reasons, and just the way it is reasons.
Nefarious example: Voter suppression. Closing polls in Arizona, changing voter registrations, removing voters from the registry. Look them up, they happened.
Hypothetical reason example: Media blackout. Bernie Sanders barely got mentions in the first half of the campaign. I think it was by design and I won't waste my or your time trying to convince you. Had Bernie not been way under covered would he have done better? Hypotheticaly yes. Clinton is the consummate NeoLiberal Democrat. Democrats support Democrats. Bernie was an Independent for most of his career. Blue blood Democrats would likely never have supported him regardless of what the media reported. A big media bias was and is including the superdelegates in the delegate totals. This absolutely was bias and meant to paint Bernie as a far longer shot candidate.
Practical reason example: Most people don't like change. The saying the "devil you know" applies. Clinton made a calculation that Democrats like Obama. She campaigned as Obama 2.0. That is working in the primary, we will see in the General.
The way it is reason example: Closed primaries. Plain and simple. It was the rule in place from the beginning. I despise that rule. It needs to change or allow same day registration where it exists. If all primaries were open or allowed same day registration you would have a whole different delegate picture. There is a good chance Bernie would be winning right now.
Clinton News Network and other plays on network call signs in my opinion are legitimate and well deserved. To be sure, if the tables were turned I would not be complaining. TYT, The Young Turks are pretty favorable to Bernie. If all coverage was like that, I would be happy and think it was fair. Republican and some Clinton supporters would obviously and rightfully disagree. Somehow our news got hijacked to become entertainment. Especially national news.
We are being played. On the right and the left and in the middle. Agendas are being played out daily. Who's agenda? You always have to follow the money to get the answer.
90% of mainstream media is controlled by 6 corporations. Doesn't that scare you? That is an incredible amount of power to influence this country.
Like I wrote, it's not THE real or only reason, but it's a big one.
Yes and no. I wrote an entire chapter of my 2014 book (“Invisible Stars: A Social History of Women in American Broadcasting”) about how First Ladies have been treated historically— and in general, the vast majority of the modern first ladies, whether Republicans or Democrats, have been subjected to often unfair scrutiny. Being First Lady is quite a retro position— unlike most women today, she is not expected to have a full-time job for pay, even if she held one before (Laura Bush was a librarian, Michelle Obama was a businesswoman, Hillary Clinton was a lawyer, etc). She is mainly expected to
Yes and no. I wrote an entire chapter of my 2014 book (“Invisible Stars: A Social History of Women in American Broadcasting”) about how First Ladies have been treated historically— and in general, the vast majority of the modern first ladies, whether Republicans or Democrats, have been subjected to often unfair scrutiny. Being First Lady is quite a retro position— unlike most women today, she is not expected to have a full-time job for pay, even if she held one before (Laura Bush was a librarian, Michelle Obama was a businesswoman, Hillary Clinton was a lawyer, etc). She is mainly expected to be a hostess, a mom, the companion to her husband at important events, and someone who wears beautiful clothes (and yet, she is often called “extravagant” or mocked for her fashion choices). And she is criticized if she speaks about current issues— she is only allowed to speak about her pet “cause” or the charity she supports.
Given that First Ladies have been treated this way since the 1930s, it’s difficult to make the case that Melania Trump is treated more or less fairly than others have been. (And whether the president is popular or not is rarely a factor— historically, first ladies have often been more popular than their husbands.) Mrs. Trump seems somewhat uncomfortable with the role she has been assigned: at times, she embraces it, but at other times, she rejects it and goes off on her own. Left to her own devices, I get the impression she would focus on modeling, and on raising her son. I don’t get the impression she likes politics all that much, and while she is fine about appearing at events in beautiful clothes, I am sure she would be happier without all the scrutiny and criticism— something every first lady for nearly ninety years has had to endure.
The goal of most media companies to optimize ratings and audience in a very competitive market.
So the media isn’t necessarily biased toward candidates, but they are biased in favor of an election characterized by:
- Conflict and drama
- A close, exciting horserace
- Easy to understand disagreements and controversies
One way this works is that when one of the candidates looks like they are doing well, it’s more exciting to run bad stories/bits about the overdog.
Also:
- The media is really biased against stories that bore or confuse viewers.
- The media likes stories that are easy and cheap to cover, and that e
The goal of most media companies to optimize ratings and audience in a very competitive market.
So the media isn’t necessarily biased toward candidates, but they are biased in favor of an election characterized by:
- Conflict and drama
- A close, exciting horserace
- Easy to understand disagreements and controversies
One way this works is that when one of the candidates looks like they are doing well, it’s more exciting to run bad stories/bits about the overdog.
Also:
- The media is really biased against stories that bore or confuse viewers.
- The media likes stories that are easy and cheap to cover, and that efficiently leverage fixed costs. Meaning: (1) the media doesn’t like to spend money investigating a detail-oriented story that requires lots of research and (2) the TV media loves to debate what candidates (or their surrogates) say publicly, because they can roll out their talking heads who are already on the payroll and need something to talk about tonight.
Without a doubt they are YUGELY biased and WikiLeaks proved it. Assange released DNC emails that specifically referenced the collusion between MSM and Clinton/DNC that made this fact crystal clear. They completely blacked out Bernie Sanders, even when he was drawing tens of thousands to his rallies, and they are now doing exactly same thing to her competition, Progressive, Jill Stein, who is they candidate the vast majority of Sanders’ supporters are flooding to. The only way people can see honest polls is to go online.
There’s a simple reason for this: Commercials = corporate advertising benef
Without a doubt they are YUGELY biased and WikiLeaks proved it. Assange released DNC emails that specifically referenced the collusion between MSM and Clinton/DNC that made this fact crystal clear. They completely blacked out Bernie Sanders, even when he was drawing tens of thousands to his rallies, and they are now doing exactly same thing to her competition, Progressive, Jill Stein, who is they candidate the vast majority of Sanders’ supporters are flooding to. The only way people can see honest polls is to go online.
There’s a simple reason for this: Commercials = corporate advertising benefiting the very wealthy =money in their pockets.
It’s fairly in-your-face obvious that the blackout of anyone daring to challenge HRC is on again now that the Primary is over. MSM is now saying that Gary Johnson is snapping up Trump’s fallout and shooting up in the polls in his challenge against Trump (questionable at best) while they remain deathly quiet about Jill Stein’s huge bump up thanks to about 81% of Sanders’ supporters going to her as a default since Sanders was robbed of the Dem nomination.
MSM anchors are now running down every possible negative story on Trump to broadcast while ignoring the chilling facts that emerged via Wikileaks about Hillary’s abysmal performance as both Senator of NY and Secretary of State. That she has lied consistently to the public about most everything, they can’t point to her record and actually praise it —too much data out there would show them to be “Pants on fire” lying. So they are striking out at Trump in every way possible in desperation to save her candidacy and their corporate advertisers, i.e., their owners and their friends—the 1% wealthiest we keep hearing about.
Apparently, though, looking the American people dead in the eye and lying about Clinton is getting easier and easier for the anchors. Polls with any degree of validity are saying that at least 81% of Sanders’ supporters are rejecting HRC for Stein, while newscasters have falsely reported on the “news” that as many as 96% of Bernie Sanders’ supporters have turned to Hillary!
Of course, that is absurd. 13 million Berners know full well that the Democratic platform Sanders worked very hard to get Clinton to commit to may as well have been written on toilet paper for all that it will mean post election if HRC happens to manage somehow to get elected. They are some of the most politically active and aware voters in America. Many believe that the only reason Sanders endorsed Hillary was because he was threatened somehow.
MSM has completely refused to report on the numerous lawsuits filed that charge voter fraud in at least 20 states that Clinton allegedly won. They also have failed to mention to the voting public that statisticians at Stanford University crunched the bizarrely warped exit polls in 20 of the (machined) Democratic Primaries Clinton won and determined that the odds against Hillary having won the Democratic Primary honestly were 1 in 77 BILLION.
THAT little tidbit has never —and will never—-hit the airways.
Thanks for the A2A, Mary.
I think we have to acknowledge, first and foremost, that the media is completely metastatic in the United States, and in much of the developed world besides: it has countless platforms, and takes countless forms, and holds itself to very different truth standards in different contexts.
We have to acknowledge, too, that the old standards of journalism, the pretense to unbiased reportage, the distinction between news and editorializing, and so forth, have collapsed as the major print, television and online outlets have been corporatized and pinned to ratings. MSNBC has a
Thanks for the A2A, Mary.
I think we have to acknowledge, first and foremost, that the media is completely metastatic in the United States, and in much of the developed world besides: it has countless platforms, and takes countless forms, and holds itself to very different truth standards in different contexts.
We have to acknowledge, too, that the old standards of journalism, the pretense to unbiased reportage, the distinction between news and editorializing, and so forth, have collapsed as the major print, television and online outlets have been corporatized and pinned to ratings. MSNBC has a brand: it’s news for liberals. FOX has a brand: it’s for conservatives. The versions of reality the two networks (which here stand in for many) do not often correspond. This allows partisans on either side — those willing to believe one spin and unwilling to consider any other viewpoint — to envisage their political rivals as existing “in a bubble,” secluded from hard facts they can’t handle, facts which might disconfirm prejudices or valorize a “tougher” line on any number of social or foreign policy issues. We now also have an alt-right, whose version of “reality” could not have survived in any previous era. The overall effect has been to decouple news from fact, and to devalue fact in general. Americans are, at present, so disconsolate about politics that their anger leaves no room for the culture of debate upon which Madisonian democracy is predicated. We live in a society where views are too often held uncritically, and in which beliefs are fiercely-held as they are brittle and wishful.
So one answer to this question is two other questions: which media? Or rather, whose media? I think we have to begin from the basic assumption that Hillary Clinton has been represented differently by media groups that profit from different partisan agendas, and present information tailor-made for the confirmation bias of their readership/viewership/what have you.
This leads to a simple, and not entirely false, but nonetheless reductive answer: that right-leaning media have worked to confirm preexisting prejudices against Clinton, Democrats, “establishment politics,” etc., and that more progressive media have supported Clinton.
But why is that answer reductive?
- First of all, I think the “progressive” media, reflecting their consumers’ own prejudices, have been a bit lukewarm, despite the desperate importance of this electoral cycle. There is little exuberant coverage of Clinton. She has none of the messianic aura of Obama. She’s what we’re stuck with.
- This has multifoliate effects. On one hand, during the primary season, progressive media outlets called some attention to Hillary’s early collection of super-delegates. This gave her candidacy an aura of inevitability that may have affected primary results; but it also tainted her campaign early on with the idea that her campaign was predicated on a slimy, back-door politicking people disenchanted with the political establishment would find loathsome. The coverage was, therefore, deeply ambiguous and aroused, I suspect, no little ambivalence.
- If this last seems counterproductive, which it certainly is if one wishes to keep a Republican out of the White House (and now we know it’s Trump, no less), it speaks to at least two key problems. The first is that the mainstream media thought Bernie Sanders too little known, and rhetorically too dangerous (with his use of the buzzword “socialism”), until too late in the primary process. And even after his movement made such significant inroads and pollsters found him beating Trump in every national poll, the left-leaning media still could not decouple itself from the Washington machine.
- I think this is because, despite Clinton’s unpopularity, the major liberal networks were too beholden to the Clintons’ power as a political entity to throw their weight behind Sanders, who was beholden primarily to the people he inspired.
- BUT, at the same time, the liberal media outlets have also covered the attacks launched at Clinton from the right: the nonstop Benghazi bunkum, the email server, etc. The latter, at least, has some pretense to actual news value, but it has been beaten to death. The right continues to push; James Comey’s words are not enough; the liberal media covers this fact; people don’t trust Hillary Clinton (the salient fact about her, really); and as a result, people on the left are jaded.
- In particular, the form in which support for Clinton has manifested itself in liberal media outlets, coupled with these outlets’ coverage of the scandalmongering of the right, has made certain key elements of the Democratic and independent constituencies at once restive, nervous, and stricken with inertia.
- A vital constituency that has been lost is the millennial constituency, the collegiate set that helped propel Obama into office twice over. This generation is wise enough to find business as usual, in either party, unacceptable. They were largely, and for what I think is very good reason, behind Sanders. They feel that the media’s presumption of inevitability and unwillingness to give Sanders his due share of the airtime may have cheated them, and the nation, of its only genuinely bright light in the election cycle — a true progressive candidate with demonstrable integrity, speaking in forthright ways about issues that matter to young people (and should).
- So now one “story” — and throughout these bullets, what I’ve been doing is retailing “stories” that outlets have “sold” in an effort to preserve ratings and the goodwill of the political interests they plump for — is the story of why millennials won’t come to Hillary’s succor, and the story of how they might vote for Johnson or Stein instead. This latter is a real story, if one the media’s coverage has helped nurture into reality: in this election, this kind of protest voting is either extraordinarily naive or insane. I’ve seen millennials profess themselves unmoved even by arguments about the Supreme Court. They’ll be less cavalier if a conservative court starts stripping away their rights, including those Sanders has fought to uphold throughout his career.
- At bottom, then, this is about stories. On the right, the story is that Clinton is a scandal-ridden, corrupt hypocrite (and, heavens forfend, a woman). On the “left” (has to be put inside quotation marks; what “left”?), Clinton is the subject of so many stories: she was made to seem inevitable, but then the political sources of her “inevitability” became a story; her real and imaginary scandals, and the desire to appear “objective,” have resulted in reactive coverage, along with a certain falsely-sincere effort to make Clinton’s accusers look kooky (this is a story which has rung false several ways in the ears of some voters); coverage of her supposed health problems has not disappeared, and even attempts to debunk the right’s claims have not kept the subject out of the headlines — and to make a story visible, even by criticizing it, is to reify it; her “electability” — as reflected in polls about how well-liked, trusted, or otherwise evaluated Clinton is among likely voters — has had deeply ambivalent effects; and I could go on ad nauseam.
At bottom, I think that the right has demonized Clinton to the point that there is no pretense to balanced discourse at all, while the “left” has tried to maintain a stance of literate fair-mindedness that is false in itself, has reflected and mutually reinforced uncertainties about Clinton that are almost certainly disproportionate to her real faults, and in the process alienated both Clinton’s supporters and Clinton’s detractors, especially the millennial set, which sees nearly all mainstream reportage on this cycle as illegitimate, compromised, skewed, and all too corporate. I agree with their assessment. I can only hope they will not see in this a reason to sit on their hands or otherwise help our polity elect Donald J. Trump to office. The less-than-charismatic schoolmarm may not be the messianic Obama or the unimpeachably authentic Sanders, but she is infinitely preferable to Trump.
TL;DR: It’s hard to track 1:1 relations between media representations of candidates and actual persons’ political beliefs, but I think the media’s take on Clinton has been, at worst, bitterly hostile in a way that makes a mockery of the facts, and, at best, muddled and ambivalent. That said, I think if Clinton were a better candidate, she could have triumphed over all of this. She’s got more experience than most candidates ever to run for high office — perhaps more than any. But she doesn’t have “it.” And that’s a problem — for her, for progressivism, for the nation.
Gulp.
Certainly.
Let's review:
- Her lies about her past as a model are politely ignored - Although the media could spotlight the paucity of both her work and her talents, they don't.
- The media has never openly tested her fluency in five languages - It's clear that Mrs. Trump can speak Slovenian (her native language) and enough American English to be understood by natives. Her lack of fluency in other languages has been apparent on several occasions, however the media has declined to pursue the matter.
- They have been hands-off about her “Be Best" policy program - Despite the numerous instances of her husb
Certainly.
Let's review:
- Her lies about her past as a model are politely ignored - Although the media could spotlight the paucity of both her work and her talents, they don't.
- The media has never openly tested her fluency in five languages - It's clear that Mrs. Trump can speak Slovenian (her native language) and enough American English to be understood by natives. Her lack of fluency in other languages has been apparent on several occasions, however the media has declined to pursue the matter.
- They have been hands-off about her “Be Best" policy program - Despite the numerous instances of her husband bullying others, no one presses that fact with her. Nor do they point out the program's lack of accomplishments.
- Her ambivalence about being First Lady is rarely delved into - In my lifetime I have never witnessed a First Lady who was less interested in the role. The media could run numerous stories about her essentially being a “nonentity” in the White House….but they don't.
- Her obvious disinterest in being a parent is never discussed - If she is indeed close to her son Barron (she doesn't even pretend to have relationships with her adult stepchildren) it's never shown publicly. Unlike her predecessors (excluding Nancy Reagan) there never seems to be much in the way of warmth, nor concern, shown by her to her only child. The media definitely doesn't probe into that.
Melania Trump is receiving a very light touch from the media. Despite being placed in an awkward position, and despite allowing her biography to be fabricated and then given to that media, they have largely left her alone, and have concentrated on her husband's foibles and failures.
She does want to stay out of the spotlight. She recently said that she wouldn't run for the presidency in 2020. Trump, the idiot, is the one that never stops mentioning her. He never will get over the fact that she had 3 million more popular votes than he did.
HRC had high favor ability ratings as Secretary of State - (the link works but seems to have chosen “none” as its title)
HRC had decent approval ratings as senator also:
Hillary Clinton Favorability Timeline
It seems that people don't mind Hillary doing a particular job they just hate that she wants the job and is willing to work hard to get the job.
So to improve her favor ability ratings she needs to get the job and be in it for a year. Then people will see that she is an intelligent and competent administrator and that America isn't becoming a cesspool of corruption nor are we going to Hell
HRC had high favor ability ratings as Secretary of State - (the link works but seems to have chosen “none” as its title)
HRC had decent approval ratings as senator also:
Hillary Clinton Favorability Timeline
It seems that people don't mind Hillary doing a particular job they just hate that she wants the job and is willing to work hard to get the job.
So to improve her favor ability ratings she needs to get the job and be in it for a year. Then people will see that she is an intelligent and competent administrator and that America isn't becoming a cesspool of corruption nor are we going to Hell in a hand basket. Once we see that her administration is more or less like that Obama administration with a touch of her husbands input her approval ratings will rise with moderates and independents.
The right will always hate her and blame all the ills they see on evil trinity of her, her husband and Obama.
I think the media, like Democrats ( actually they are the same as the mainstream media merely act as polemical arms of the Democratic Party) developed this sense of inevitability about Clinton (my, don’t you know she went to Wellesley and Yale?)
SecondlyHillary’s personal unlikability became overwhelmingly apparent. Finally, like most Democrats, she was smug in her conviction that she knew how other people should live— according to the dictates of a “benevolent” federal government. Elitism, entitlement, and snobbery are not character traits that most people found endearing— in the media or Hill
I think the media, like Democrats ( actually they are the same as the mainstream media merely act as polemical arms of the Democratic Party) developed this sense of inevitability about Clinton (my, don’t you know she went to Wellesley and Yale?)
SecondlyHillary’s personal unlikability became overwhelmingly apparent. Finally, like most Democrats, she was smug in her conviction that she knew how other people should live— according to the dictates of a “benevolent” federal government. Elitism, entitlement, and snobbery are not character traits that most people found endearing— in the media or Hillary Clinton.
The fundamental mainstream media bias is towards controversy and a horse-race narrative. And an attempt to present things as a competition. When 97% of scientific papers that mention global warming know it happens the media still present it as a debate between equals.
And the media is bending over backwards to present Donald Trump as fundamentally equal to Hillary Clinton but even when it can present global warming as between equally valid sides it can’t quite manage to present Trump as credible. Which means that if you think presenting them as equals is a sign of unbiased media then the media
The fundamental mainstream media bias is towards controversy and a horse-race narrative. And an attempt to present things as a competition. When 97% of scientific papers that mention global warming know it happens the media still present it as a debate between equals.
And the media is bending over backwards to present Donald Trump as fundamentally equal to Hillary Clinton but even when it can present global warming as between equally valid sides it can’t quite manage to present Trump as credible. Which means that if you think presenting them as equals is a sign of unbiased media then the media is biased towards Clinton because it can’t quite provide Trump with enough support. If you think that presenting as clear an impression of the facts as possible is important then the media is pretty strongly biased towards Trump because it is attempting to carry him towards the finish line.
I found an interesting view of the media bias, of all placed in "a conservative column"
Posted on Tuesday the 2nd of February 2016, by Alice Greene in " The Post"
"Last Friday I wrote about a brutal article published in the Washington Post that attacks Bernie Sanders’s policies and refers to his campaign as “fiction-filled.” While I couldn’t help but agree with most of the story, I was surprised that the leftwing newspaper would launch such an attack against a “Democratic” candidate. The article brought to my attention not only the stark contrast between the media's portrayal of the two Democra
I found an interesting view of the media bias, of all placed in "a conservative column"
Posted on Tuesday the 2nd of February 2016, by Alice Greene in " The Post"
"Last Friday I wrote about a brutal article published in the Washington Post that attacks Bernie Sanders’s policies and refers to his campaign as “fiction-filled.” While I couldn’t help but agree with most of the story, I was surprised that the leftwing newspaper would launch such an attack against a “Democratic” candidate. The article brought to my attention not only the stark contrast between the media's portrayal of the two Democratic frontrunners, but also the media's tendency to favor Hillary Clinton."
"Sanders’s supporters were “hopping mad” last October after their comments about the presidential debate were deleted by CNN. “Already feeling the news network’s coverage had become rabidly pro-Hillary in the aftermath of last night’s debate, Facebook users leaving reactions on CNN’s page are now continually re-posting them knowing they will be quickly removed…with no explanation as to why,” reads a Media Equalizer story covering the topic."
The offended party cited CNN’s initial Facebook data showing Sanders as having won the debate. The network buried that information in the following day’s coverage.
I do believe that their is a strong bias in reporting....
Several months ago I began noticing the way Bernie vs. Hillary were portrayed by the media. After debates, or photos from the campaign trail, photos of Bernie were overwhelmingly of him, walking away slumped shouldered, head down, with only a smattering of supporters around him. Photos of Hillary on the other hand, were taken from a lower angel, making her look larger than life, arms up 'victorious', big smile on her face. These photos techniques are used in advertising, newspaper, TV ads, and movie promos. Is it mere coincidence that out of the, literally thousands of photos shot at these events, these photos were picked randomly?
I would love to hear, what other viewers have noticed.....
Thanks for the A2A. Well it depends on the definition of the word "smearing". There is some context here in the US and it loosly relates here. Bill (not Hillary) called nuanced definitions of the word "is" when discussing whether he lied in denying a sexual relationship with a White House intern.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html
So it depends on how you define the word. I agree with Ian's answer. Smear is a strong word. Clinton herself smeared Bernie by calling him sexist by taking his reference to shouting about gun con
Thanks for the A2A. Well it depends on the definition of the word "smearing". There is some context here in the US and it loosly relates here. Bill (not Hillary) called nuanced definitions of the word "is" when discussing whether he lied in denying a sexual relationship with a White House intern.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html
So it depends on how you define the word. I agree with Ian's answer. Smear is a strong word. Clinton herself smeared Bernie by calling him sexist by taking his reference to shouting about gun control out of context. Media propagated the smear, but technically did not originate it.
The latest smear campaign is related to Bernie's, again out of context statement regarding "Whites dont know what it's like to be poor". There is also a red baiting campaign out of the last Debate over comments made by Bernie about Castro 30 years ago. Are these smear campaigns? I guess the answer depends on the reader.
In my opinion, some media outlets are attempting to smear Bernie, but a stretch to say ALL media is smearing Bernie.
I don't think it is a stretch to say most media is showing a blatant Clinton bias. Delegate counts, inevitability, advancing polling when favorable, discounting when not.
So smearing--maybe sometimes--biased against--yes, most of the time.
I can only guess that one of three things crossed her mind and resulted in her avoiding Fox News altogether:
1.) “Her media” (the liberal press) was so negative about Fox News that she would have almost by herself have given them “cred” in the news game with any interview.
2.) She was convinced by “the facts” that she saw or was being fed that only “Trump conservatives” (i.e. “white working men”) were the ones that watched the Fox Network so why waste her time.
3.) Fox News in general, and some commentators in particular, scared the ordure (I have been waiting so long to use that word in a senten
I can only guess that one of three things crossed her mind and resulted in her avoiding Fox News altogether:
1.) “Her media” (the liberal press) was so negative about Fox News that she would have almost by herself have given them “cred” in the news game with any interview.
2.) She was convinced by “the facts” that she saw or was being fed that only “Trump conservatives” (i.e. “white working men”) were the ones that watched the Fox Network so why waste her time.
3.) Fox News in general, and some commentators in particular, scared the ordure (I have been waiting so long to use that word in a sentence) right out of her and that fear came from the fact that it is difficult to answer questions posed by questioners that would not allow advance copies of the questions. Besides, the more lies you tell the harder it is to keep up with them.
I think the real answer is a combination of the first two with a heavy amount of number 3 thrown in.
It seems like she’s making a huge mistake in doing so.
Click on her website
Hillary for America starts right here [ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/ ]
, what pops up on your screen??? A pop up that says “We Can’t Risk A Donald Trump Presidency.” WTH???? WHY???
Is she dual advertising in an attempt to face the weakest opponent? It befuddles me, this is the only explanation that I can think of.
When Obam
It seems like she’s making a huge mistake in doing so.
Click on her website
Hillary for America starts right here [ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/ ]
, what pops up on your screen??? A pop up that says “We Can’t Risk A Donald Trump Presidency.” WTH???? WHY???
Is she dual advertising in an attempt to face the weakest opponent? It befuddles me, this is the only explanation that I can think of.
When Obama ran in 2008, I noticed that all of his opponents were talking about him. It was as if he was the hero of his own film, and the presidency was the macguffin.
And it’...
Yes. One has to consider the primary motivation for news outlets to write pieces in the first place. No, it's not to impartially educate and enlighten readers. Their priority is to attract traffic and gain revenue.
Stories about Trump generate more traffic than any almost any other modern day news topic. Negative pieces about Trump makes news outlets boatloads of money because people who dislike Trump have the highest propensity to consume and share such content. Trump has become the most talked-about individual in recent history. Usually, (regardless of basis in truth) the story about Trump i
Yes. One has to consider the primary motivation for news outlets to write pieces in the first place. No, it's not to impartially educate and enlighten readers. Their priority is to attract traffic and gain revenue.
Stories about Trump generate more traffic than any almost any other modern day news topic. Negative pieces about Trump makes news outlets boatloads of money because people who dislike Trump have the highest propensity to consume and share such content. Trump has become the most talked-about individual in recent history. Usually, (regardless of basis in truth) the story about Trump is something almost unbelievable - incredulous - "Did The Person Running For President Really Say That?" This gets readers worked up, getting them to share their laughter/derision/disbelief by sending the article to someone else, generating another hit and so on. If you note news articles shared on Facebook, ones about Donald Trump will always have the most comments and reactions. The media has capitalized on people's strong emotional reactions towards the topic of Donald Trump.
Clinton and Sanders are comparatively much more "boring" candidates. News outlets are simply being pragmatic by focusing their resources on churning out pieces that generate the most monetary return. They found how profitable it was running pieces on him early on in the election cycle, and they've stuck by the cash cow formula. Hence, Trump has gained the most coverage since announcing his run, and will continue to be the candidate with the most coverage.
Because she has a toxic persona.
Hilary Clinton is smart -- very smart. She learns from her missteps.
1) She is better behind the scenes than in front of a camera.
2) She knows she was demonized for decades. That makes her a less attractive spokeswoman than say Elizabeth Warren.
3) She knows many Democrats blame her for losing to President Trump last November. Congressional leaders like chuck Schumer and even Nancy Pelosi carry less baggage -- at least with Democrats.
4) Hilary was initially very depressed about losing. She seems to have recovered somewhat. ON the other hand, she seems mostly h
Because she has a toxic persona.
Hilary Clinton is smart -- very smart. She learns from her missteps.
1) She is better behind the scenes than in front of a camera.
2) She knows she was demonized for decades. That makes her a less attractive spokeswoman than say Elizabeth Warren.
3) She knows many Democrats blame her for losing to President Trump last November. Congressional leaders like chuck Schumer and even Nancy Pelosi carry less baggage -- at least with Democrats.
4) Hilary was initially very depressed about losing. She seems to have recovered somewhat. ON the other hand, she seems mostly happy to move on with her life. Occasionally she shows flashbacks of anger.
5) Secretary Clinton seems to enjoy spending time with her kid and grandkids.
6) She is also working on a book. We will probably hear more from her when it comes out. In the meantime, too many spoilers would spoil the reaction.
7) Right now, Mrs. Clinton -- and most Establishment Democrats -- are fine with the spotlight being focused on President Trump. In politics, it is easier to mobilize people against something than for something. President Trump won the election and painted a bull's-eye on himself. If Mrs. Clinton draws more attention to herself, she takes some of the spotlight away from the President.
Thanks for the A2A, Farzad.
It seems strange to me, and I have been thinking about this a lot, because I am one of the many who simply assumed that Clinton's team had learned from 2008 and would nor be ambushed again by an outsider, long-shot candidate.
I don't know how bad the mismanagement has been, since I still would be surprised if she doesn't pull out the nomination in the end. But there is no question that her team is
It seems strange to me, and I have been thinking about this a lot, because I am one of the many who simply assumed that Clinton's team had learned from 2008 and would nor be ambushed again by an outsider, long-shot candidate.
I don't know how bad the mismanagement has been, since I still would be surprised if she doesn't pull out the nomination in the end. But there is no question that her team is rattled and tonight's debate cannot have helped:
Clinton Campaign Underestimated Sanders Strengths, Allies Say [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/us/politics/hillary-clinton-regrets-not-attacking-bernie-sanders-earlier-her-allies-say.html ]
At a simple level, I think her game plan was the walk through the primaries untouched while the Republicans tear themselves apart. This certainly would make sense to me, since Sanders is a real outsider candidate with no prior exposure on the national stage. Who knew how strong a candidate he would be? I didn't, and I have been voting for him for two decades.
Beyond that under-estimation, which parallels the underestimation of Trump, I think Hillary has been in an establishment bubble for a really long time, and is just not in touch with how despairing and dope-sick the lower classes in this country have become:
Drug Overdoses Propel Rise in Mortality Rates of Young Whites [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/science/drug-overdoses-propel-rise-in-mortality-rates-of-young-whites.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&moduleDetail=inside-nyt-region-0&module=inside-nyt-region®ion=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=in...
It's really easy to second-guess a campaign, and this is (or should be considered) a war game. Anyone familiar with strategy should be aware of the aphorism, "Battle plans do not survive the first contact with the enemy." Please keep in mind that there is no perfect defense, and the 'enemy' is an intelligent agent capable of exploiting weaknesses. And there are always weaknesses.
Clinton has been preparing for presidential election for 20 years now. She in 2008 she had to present a tough persona to ward off attackers who assumed she was, as a woman too weak to project power. That shift to full-
It's really easy to second-guess a campaign, and this is (or should be considered) a war game. Anyone familiar with strategy should be aware of the aphorism, "Battle plans do not survive the first contact with the enemy." Please keep in mind that there is no perfect defense, and the 'enemy' is an intelligent agent capable of exploiting weaknesses. And there are always weaknesses.
Clinton has been preparing for presidential election for 20 years now. She in 2008 she had to present a tough persona to ward off attackers who assumed she was, as a woman too weak to project power. That shift to full-on pro military power left her vulnerable to an attack to the left. Had she been less of a 'tough guy', she might have won the nomination and lost the election. Romney proved that the 'reset', or pivot after nominations does not work, because while the country seems to forget anything more than 3 years old it can remember statements made in the last 6 months, and they matter.
For this election she has been, in addition to a Senator Secretary of State. By most standards she was effective, although not outstanding, and has adequately armored herself from accusations that she was just a weak liberal. She could afford to soften her stance, at least TRY to appear more human and even project a little warmth about being a grandmother. What she could do little about was her close contacts with wealth and power.
This is really what the Sanders campaign is hitting at. Sure, she claims to have 'Told Wall Street to cut it out!", and that's the best she can do. It's not very effective with voters who can read and consider that loyalty has to flow both ways. She needed money to campaign with and it's very easy to get from businesses that have essentially unlimited funds. The calculation was that she could split the difference between depending on Wall Street and opposing it's worst excesses to gain popular support. And it's worked, for the most part. It was clear from the beginning that Warren would not run (no matter how much some wanted her to), and the network of support she had built over this long time is extensive and effective. But to say that she has 'mismanaged' her campaign is to say that anything less than a runaway success is incompetence, and denigrates the competition which has been fierce. Don't fall into the Trump Trap of calling everyone bested 'losers'.
In spite of what others here responded, most responsible, accurate media now realize that they made way too much of the e-mails and for sure had a negative impact on her electability. They assumed that Trump was unelectable, so they figured they could go hard on Hillary. What Hillary did was improper, and was worthy of some attention and investigation, but there was no malice intended, she did NOT commit treason, and she did not endanger our national security. (Yeah, I know there are plenty of people who would contradict that, but they are relying on very distorted sources of information.) On
In spite of what others here responded, most responsible, accurate media now realize that they made way too much of the e-mails and for sure had a negative impact on her electability. They assumed that Trump was unelectable, so they figured they could go hard on Hillary. What Hillary did was improper, and was worthy of some attention and investigation, but there was no malice intended, she did NOT commit treason, and she did not endanger our national security. (Yeah, I know there are plenty of people who would contradict that, but they are relying on very distorted sources of information.) On the other hand, the documents issue with Trump is still up in the air, because no one knows his motivation. Was it just so he could brag and show off the documents to his Mar-A-Lago buddies, or was he intending to monetize them or improperly use them in some way? Or has he already done that, which would explain the empty folders? I don’t pretend to know the answer, but it is certainly extremely important to find out. The Banghazi investigations took three years, and the Justice Dept. only just started investigating Trump’s documents issue.
"Hillary bashing" would need to consist of thoughtful arguments about her record - which is both abundant and flawed - subject to attack. But if one is to avoid sounding like a clown, these are not 1/2 sentence 5 word shock sound bites.
"Trump bashing" on the other hand, consists of playing brief recordings of him sounding like a clown, using 1/2 sentence 5 word shock sound bites.
The first requires work, and thought, and produces "bad" TV
The second requires no work, no thought, just roll tape and let Trump bash himself.
It is "good" TV
Ideology has nothing to do with it.
The biggest problem Hillary has has managing her campaign is that she isn't well positioned to deal with upstart campaigns. This was true in 2008 and it remains true now.
And while the text of her responses have been different between Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, the method she has dealt with them has actually been roughly the same: Start out in front, not particularly address her opponents until they start looking strong, and then come out swinging--positive on her own message, negative and sometimes misleading on her opponents.
Hillary is in the same position she was in back in 2008. She i
The biggest problem Hillary has has managing her campaign is that she isn't well positioned to deal with upstart campaigns. This was true in 2008 and it remains true now.
And while the text of her responses have been different between Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, the method she has dealt with them has actually been roughly the same: Start out in front, not particularly address her opponents until they start looking strong, and then come out swinging--positive on her own message, negative and sometimes misleading on her opponents.
Hillary is in the same position she was in back in 2008. She is handling it substantially the same way, though more muscularly. I am not sure why she expects a materially different outcome, given that she is a smart person, but she does. If the most recent debate and the press after it for Bernie does not cause her to reconsider her approach then despite her current poll numbers she will lose this race well before it gets to California.
The various media produce what they produce to -sell- to the public. Fairness has not a blessed thing to do with it. The Paperazzi are sharks and well known people are fresh meat for the sharks.
It depends on the particular media and the issue under discussion. In my mind right now for example, she cannot expect a fair shake from the New York Times regarding the so-called e-mail scandal.
Page on newsweek.com
Page on newsweek.com
On other, more policy orientated issues, I think she is treated fine if not generously.