Wile it's true that they've not pursued the fake scandals trump & company have been pushing as relentlessly as they did in 2016, the press has only recently found its way. I'm not so sure that they'd be as judicious if not for the likes of The Lincoln Project, Meidastouch and you.
I strongly agree that the big difference this time is that the media isn’t playing along. However I think the main reason is that Trump has scared them so much that for once they have declined to play along. While sexism clearly amplified the attacks on Hillary, those attacks were part of a long string of bogus scandals that the mainstream media helped spread against Democrats, starting with both Clintons — Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Chinagate. The media also willingly pushed right wing lies about Gore, such as him supposedly having claimed to have invented the internet. The media did this knowing that they were repeating bald-faced lies. The media also didn’t respond with appropriate outrage when Bush’s surrogates smeared Kerry’s genuine war heroism. Instead the media attacked Kerry for not responding “appropriately” to those unconscionable lies.
As I have posted before I think there is a subconscious sexism in the media coverage of Democrats because Democrats, the “mommy party” represent more feminine values. Reporters really admire faux-macho Republicans who strut and bully them the way Rumsfeld always did in press conferences. In contrast they mock Democrats for “feeling our pain”, for being “effete”, etc. The fact that the Times’ Maureen Dowd got away with writing that Gore had become “so feminized.....he was practically lactating” because of his concern for our environment still boggles my mind. Besides being an incredibly stupid thing to write, it is extremely sexist. The Times would never publish something that was as blatantly racist but no one blinked an eye at Dowd’s blatantly sexist insult.
The other thing that is different this time around is that the NY FBI agents (probably) aren’t interfering but since the media has refused to cover that shocking story we have no way of knowing.
Unfortunately Hillary's place in history will not be as the first female US President, although she won the popular vote by 3 million. However her place in history will be secure. Historians will portray her as the candidate that was so unfairly treated by the press, primarily because she was a woman. Being a Clinton didn't help either since the press relentlessly pursued all the alleged Clinton scandals at the behest of the right. I honestly believe if Hillary had been a man, she/he would have won in a landslide. The fact that a woman with her credentials as attorney who worked on Watergate, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the US, New York Senator, and Secretary of State, lost to a sociopathic narcissistic liar who's biggest acclaim was to be the host of The Apprentice says it all about sexism in American. But I digress considering your post is about the press not falling for it this time. The bottom line is the press should be very frightened of a second Trump term. If that were to happen, I do believe that sooner than later in the next four years, a journalist or two will be locked up. It all spirals out of control after that. Hopefully it's not too little too late.
Republicans complain about their made-up scandals not getting covered in the same way they complain about their "questions not getting answered." They do get answered; it's just not the answer they wanted. Cf. birtherism.
And I'm not the first person to say this, but I think there's an ethos in the Beltway media that the more "cool"-sounding, cloak-and-dagger methods regarding the gathering of information, the more important a story is. "Hacked" (stolen) secret emails? RUN EM. It's John Podesta's risotto recipe? DOESN'T MATTER SECRET HACKED RUN EM. Meanwhile, Trump says live on TV that he wants to put his opponent in jail and that a "socialist" (lie) president would be bad, "especially a female," and it's YAWN SO BORRRING.
Ben Smith has what seems to me a fine piece in The Times about the effort to get the story into The Wall Street Journal, where the news columns always have been conservative but make an effort to be factually solid. And it's a reminder that, indeed, if it had been about Chelsea Clinton, it would have been published with no questions asked.
A little reminder: In the late 1990s, Sally Quinn did a "story" in The Washington Post about the Clintons and how GAUCHE they were, including the vastly overrated and by then doddering David Broder saying, "They trashed the place, and it's not their place." Interestingly, she did a similar story in the late 1970s about the Carters. I wonder: Could it also be an establishment bias against those illiterate southerners who went to schools like Georgetown, the Naval Academy, and Oxford?
saw you on am joy
and thanks for a little iris in the morning
made my day
Not quite. Axis Maggie fired off a tweet immediately.
Oh wow. Great song choice.
As for the Hunter Biden non-story, you pretty much nailed it. He isn’t a candidate and the source is dubious at best, not to mention illegally obtained, if it were to be believed. Republicans are like the Keystone cops with this. It is very satisfying to watch their utter disbelief that it’s getting no traction. A perfect example of why getting a good political strategist and actually listening to them matters. And why taking the toxic bullshit too far will backfire.
The "excuse me," arm extension, wing flap routine doesn't work in print. Without video, you hear the con.