Someone please write the definitive book about why the press decided - starting in 1992 - that the Clintons were not their kind of people. That seems to be the underlying theme of the way the press treated them from day one.
I've come to the conclusion that Trump will be with us until the day he leaves planet earth for good. He will never face justice, not while we have an MSM so frightened to dig into his misdeeds. Not while we have a DOJ too frightened to follow the law when clearly there is so much evidence. How many days ago did the Jan 6 Committee send the Mark Meadows contempt of Congress charge to the DOJ? What have we heard from Garland and company? Crickets! Steve Bannon is still on the air threatening revenge even after being indicted. Something is so drastically wrong in our government and our media. It all points to too many with money and power who want more and who are no longer interested in democracy. Imagine and alternate universe where Hillary won the election. How different things might have been. This is all very bad for my blood pressure.
The defense will, of course, be that the But Her Emails obsession was part of the campaign coverage. Then they’ll go right back to talking about the possibility of Trump 2024 without it ever even occurring to them that the illegal destruction of documents could be a campaign issue.
I find it too painful to discuss media treatment of Hillary Clinton but has anyone ever considered that the “But Her Emails” crowd is on the GOP payroll? Much like the legendary “it’s time for some traffic in Fort Lee,” maybe it’s time for the IRS’s forensic accounting unit to do some investigating …
Merrick Garland doesn’t determine laws, he enforces them, we fervently hope. Anyone who can read can make an assessment about current laws. Ms Haberman and the entire NYT editorial staff had no problem accusing Secretary Clinton of all manner of crimes. Their credibility is non existent
I learned a long time ago that when things don't seem to make sense, it's time to step back and re-evaluate. WR suggested the possibility that some members of the media may have been bought off. It would be naive to believe that wasn't almost a given in this day and age. Another thing to consider is the likelihood that - like many politicians and public officials who tried to stand up to the Trump Mob - some media folks are just scared shitless of becoming a target of right-wing domestic terrorism. Many knowledgeable people have compared Trump to a Mafia crime boss who threatens and intimidates the people who refuse to do his bidding. So maybe the best explanation is the simplest one: plain, old-fashioned fear.
I read Eric's analysis and used the link to read the apologia in the WP. My reaction was that it was even worse than the manner in which Eric characterized it. I have now canceled WP along with my digital sub to NYT. This was a bridge too far.
Our Failed Political Press ™ has worn out their thesauruses and flipped through their word-of-the-day calendars coming up with new ways to avoid saying “lie,” or “liar,” and now they are stretching for “steal,” and “thief.”
The thing is, just from the professional perspective —having read the generally accepted AP Style Guide and Chicago Manual of Style (and even the elegant Strunk & White)— is that journalists are supposed to write with simplicity and clarity.
They are not following their own style guides, so this goes not just way beyond editorial development discretion, this is well beyond subverting copy editing standards.
You cannot tell me that this doesn’t come from the top. It just must.
Ashley Parker is a joke. "Frenzied"? Then why did it take the National Archives several months (since summer of 2021) of "negotiations" with Trump before they were able to get the documnts returned? If it was just a packing and moving mistake, why weren't the papers returned right away?
"To date, the D.C. press has never acknowledged its sins of 2016; made no serious attempt to grapple with what went so wrong."
Absolutely correct. But they did "try" to grapple—their shallow analysis boiled down to one point: HRC ran a terrible campaign, which is why she lost!
Not to mention the "Hillary go away" theme after the election. Quite the difference with Trump's exit (or lack of one). MAGA Maggie and the rest of the media (with a few exceptions) are as hypocritical as the GOP, which is why they are a match made in hell.
And the Clinton bashing continues. From yesterday's NY Post:
Most Democrats want Hillary Clinton investigated for any role in Russiagate scandal: poll
And here are the opening graphs:
"A surprisingly large share of Democrats wants to see Hillary Clinton investigated over her possible role in manufacturing dirt to try to tie Donald Trump to the Kremlin, a new poll shows.
The survey, conducted by TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics in New Jersey last month, polled 1,308 Americans about the mushrooming investigation by Special Counsel John Durham into the FBI’s probe of Trump’s alleged links to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign."
And this.
"Meanwhile, the new poll found that Americans want greater scrutiny of the Biden family, too."
Add to that the NYT's Jeremy Peters who told Brian Stelter that Dems "don't appreciate the power of Fox News." Peters is a smart guy, but is so entrenched in the bubble of the RW—after all he covers them exclusively—that this statement is just ludicrous. Either we Dems are hysterical over a fake "vast right wing conspiracy" or we are clueless about the main driver of RW BS.
The Beltway buffoons have ignored the reality that if they didn't act like a bunch of crazy gold prospectors that viewed any negative Clinton story like it was paydirt, then maybe the rocky relationship with them wouldn't exist at all in the first place.
Holding the power to account is supposed to the job of the press. However, they seem to be more eager when a Democratic politician is under scrutiny compared to a Republican.
Obviously, a lot of us wonder if this double standard only exists because of the relentless attacks from the right-wing media machine that the mainstream media is "liberal", and are mouthpieces of the Democratic Party (totally untrue).
Hilary Clinton is just one of the many examples of this ugly double standard still plaguing the Beltway press and the whole American mainstream media establishment in general.
It's annoying that the right-wing media machine constantly abuses its right to free speech & expression to divide your country and hurt the quality of its journalism.
A reminder of the ballad of Sally Quinn. In the 1990s, she wrote a piece in The Post about how the Clintons were just so gauche, as far as the DC establishment was concerned. She quoted a by-then senile onetime capable political reporter, David Broder, saying, "They trashed the place, and it's not their place." And two decades before, she wrote almost the same story about the Carters.
But the Reagans? Lovely people. The Bushes? Establishment. As for Orange Hitler, he was good copy or clickbait. That's all that mattered to these enemies of the people.
Indeed, it's the one thing he got right, but in reverse. They ARE the enemies of the people, but not in the way he thinks.
What I still can’t figure out is why so much ink was wasted on what turned out to be a non story. How many angles can one come up with to write about a server kept at home? There was no there there, yet Cillizza found a way to write 50+ pieces about WHAT exactly? How many times can you frame the same story w/no changes even as the facts changed? Eric, another column by you exposing the hypocrisy of today’s msm. We all know what/who TFG is, an amoral, corrupt malignant narcissist but he’s treated as an amusing lark by the press. Clinton was treated like a harridan. For sure, fairness by the press, and some perspective in their writing could have resulted in the election of President HRC.
Meanwhile the right wingnut "press" is today ballyhooing that trump claims Hillary hacked his servers and that it's "bigger than Watergate, and "Treason". In the interest of bothsidesism how long before that "trump says" item hits the beltway front page?
The missing word in your excellent column: misogyny.
Someone please write the definitive book about why the press decided - starting in 1992 - that the Clintons were not their kind of people. That seems to be the underlying theme of the way the press treated them from day one.
I've come to the conclusion that Trump will be with us until the day he leaves planet earth for good. He will never face justice, not while we have an MSM so frightened to dig into his misdeeds. Not while we have a DOJ too frightened to follow the law when clearly there is so much evidence. How many days ago did the Jan 6 Committee send the Mark Meadows contempt of Congress charge to the DOJ? What have we heard from Garland and company? Crickets! Steve Bannon is still on the air threatening revenge even after being indicted. Something is so drastically wrong in our government and our media. It all points to too many with money and power who want more and who are no longer interested in democracy. Imagine and alternate universe where Hillary won the election. How different things might have been. This is all very bad for my blood pressure.
The defense will, of course, be that the But Her Emails obsession was part of the campaign coverage. Then they’ll go right back to talking about the possibility of Trump 2024 without it ever even occurring to them that the illegal destruction of documents could be a campaign issue.
I find it too painful to discuss media treatment of Hillary Clinton but has anyone ever considered that the “But Her Emails” crowd is on the GOP payroll? Much like the legendary “it’s time for some traffic in Fort Lee,” maybe it’s time for the IRS’s forensic accounting unit to do some investigating …
Merrick Garland doesn’t determine laws, he enforces them, we fervently hope. Anyone who can read can make an assessment about current laws. Ms Haberman and the entire NYT editorial staff had no problem accusing Secretary Clinton of all manner of crimes. Their credibility is non existent
I learned a long time ago that when things don't seem to make sense, it's time to step back and re-evaluate. WR suggested the possibility that some members of the media may have been bought off. It would be naive to believe that wasn't almost a given in this day and age. Another thing to consider is the likelihood that - like many politicians and public officials who tried to stand up to the Trump Mob - some media folks are just scared shitless of becoming a target of right-wing domestic terrorism. Many knowledgeable people have compared Trump to a Mafia crime boss who threatens and intimidates the people who refuse to do his bidding. So maybe the best explanation is the simplest one: plain, old-fashioned fear.
I read Eric's analysis and used the link to read the apologia in the WP. My reaction was that it was even worse than the manner in which Eric characterized it. I have now canceled WP along with my digital sub to NYT. This was a bridge too far.
Our Failed Political Press ™ has worn out their thesauruses and flipped through their word-of-the-day calendars coming up with new ways to avoid saying “lie,” or “liar,” and now they are stretching for “steal,” and “thief.”
The thing is, just from the professional perspective —having read the generally accepted AP Style Guide and Chicago Manual of Style (and even the elegant Strunk & White)— is that journalists are supposed to write with simplicity and clarity.
They are not following their own style guides, so this goes not just way beyond editorial development discretion, this is well beyond subverting copy editing standards.
You cannot tell me that this doesn’t come from the top. It just must.
Ashley Parker is a joke. "Frenzied"? Then why did it take the National Archives several months (since summer of 2021) of "negotiations" with Trump before they were able to get the documnts returned? If it was just a packing and moving mistake, why weren't the papers returned right away?
"To date, the D.C. press has never acknowledged its sins of 2016; made no serious attempt to grapple with what went so wrong."
Absolutely correct. But they did "try" to grapple—their shallow analysis boiled down to one point: HRC ran a terrible campaign, which is why she lost!
Not to mention the "Hillary go away" theme after the election. Quite the difference with Trump's exit (or lack of one). MAGA Maggie and the rest of the media (with a few exceptions) are as hypocritical as the GOP, which is why they are a match made in hell.
And the Clinton bashing continues. From yesterday's NY Post:
Most Democrats want Hillary Clinton investigated for any role in Russiagate scandal: poll
And here are the opening graphs:
"A surprisingly large share of Democrats wants to see Hillary Clinton investigated over her possible role in manufacturing dirt to try to tie Donald Trump to the Kremlin, a new poll shows.
The survey, conducted by TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics in New Jersey last month, polled 1,308 Americans about the mushrooming investigation by Special Counsel John Durham into the FBI’s probe of Trump’s alleged links to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign."
And this.
"Meanwhile, the new poll found that Americans want greater scrutiny of the Biden family, too."
Add to that the NYT's Jeremy Peters who told Brian Stelter that Dems "don't appreciate the power of Fox News." Peters is a smart guy, but is so entrenched in the bubble of the RW—after all he covers them exclusively—that this statement is just ludicrous. Either we Dems are hysterical over a fake "vast right wing conspiracy" or we are clueless about the main driver of RW BS.
The Beltway buffoons have ignored the reality that if they didn't act like a bunch of crazy gold prospectors that viewed any negative Clinton story like it was paydirt, then maybe the rocky relationship with them wouldn't exist at all in the first place.
Holding the power to account is supposed to the job of the press. However, they seem to be more eager when a Democratic politician is under scrutiny compared to a Republican.
Obviously, a lot of us wonder if this double standard only exists because of the relentless attacks from the right-wing media machine that the mainstream media is "liberal", and are mouthpieces of the Democratic Party (totally untrue).
Hilary Clinton is just one of the many examples of this ugly double standard still plaguing the Beltway press and the whole American mainstream media establishment in general.
It's annoying that the right-wing media machine constantly abuses its right to free speech & expression to divide your country and hurt the quality of its journalism.
A reminder of the ballad of Sally Quinn. In the 1990s, she wrote a piece in The Post about how the Clintons were just so gauche, as far as the DC establishment was concerned. She quoted a by-then senile onetime capable political reporter, David Broder, saying, "They trashed the place, and it's not their place." And two decades before, she wrote almost the same story about the Carters.
But the Reagans? Lovely people. The Bushes? Establishment. As for Orange Hitler, he was good copy or clickbait. That's all that mattered to these enemies of the people.
Indeed, it's the one thing he got right, but in reverse. They ARE the enemies of the people, but not in the way he thinks.
What I still can’t figure out is why so much ink was wasted on what turned out to be a non story. How many angles can one come up with to write about a server kept at home? There was no there there, yet Cillizza found a way to write 50+ pieces about WHAT exactly? How many times can you frame the same story w/no changes even as the facts changed? Eric, another column by you exposing the hypocrisy of today’s msm. We all know what/who TFG is, an amoral, corrupt malignant narcissist but he’s treated as an amusing lark by the press. Clinton was treated like a harridan. For sure, fairness by the press, and some perspective in their writing could have resulted in the election of President HRC.
Remember when the press wrote endlessly about Colin Powell's use of a private email server when he was Secretary of State?
I don't, either.
Meanwhile the right wingnut "press" is today ballyhooing that trump claims Hillary hacked his servers and that it's "bigger than Watergate, and "Treason". In the interest of bothsidesism how long before that "trump says" item hits the beltway front page?