Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumMoyers & Company on the media's unfair treatment of Hillary
The bigger point is this: whatever you may think of the Clintons, the scandals didnt create the meme of untrustworthiness about them. The meme of untrustworthiness created the scandals. The media just kept hunting for those scandals as confirmation of what they had already determined. That is how so many in the MSM work backwards from presumption to incident. It also happens to be the surest path to career advancement for journalistic opportunists.
And on the millions of FBI agents assigned to the email drama:
The error that has gotten the most attention from press critics is the number of FBI agents supposedly assigned to the case: 147! And from where did that number come? An unnamed lawmaker who said he had been briefed by FBI Director James Comey. Do you suppose that lawmaker was a Republican out to get Clinton, and do you suppose that a journalist looking for the truth ought to have been highly skeptical of such a source? The actual number was said to be under 50, and even that, FBI experts told NBC, was probably substantially overstated.
This is no small mistake. Nor is it necessarily an honest one. The entire article could only have been intended to hurt Clinton politically. At a time when rightwing websites are rubbing their hands in glee over the prospect of Clinton being indicted (fat chance), this is big, and it deserved both a giant retraction and self-flagellating penance from the paper. It got neither. As for the scandal itself, see Kurt Eichenwalds take in Newsweek because you certainly wont see this kind of analysis anywhere else in the MSM for the simple but unethical reason that the media dont want to kill the story any more than the Republicans do. Its just too delicious.
This is no small mistake. Nor is it necessarily an honest one. The entire article could only have been intended to hurt Clinton politically. At a time when rightwing websites are rubbing their hands in glee over the prospect of Clinton being indicted (fat chance), this is big, and it deserved both a giant retraction and self-flagellating penance from the paper. It got neither. As for the scandal itself, see Kurt Eichenwalds take in Newsweek because you certainly wont see this kind of analysis anywhere else in the MSM for the simple but unethical reason that the media dont want to kill the story any more than the Republicans do. Its just too delicious.
And in conclusion:
No, Hillary Clinton isnt without sin. No candidate is. But she has been deliberately and unfairly abused by the press for years, her motives always impugned, her gaffes blown out of proportion, her missteps always attributed not to miscalculations or ordinary human foible but to deep character flaws. (Just Google Hillary Clinton and character.)
http://billmoyers.com/story/the-media-have-a-hillary-story-and-theyre-sticking-to-it/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
10 replies, 761 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (21)
ReplyReply to this post
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Moyers & Company on the media's unfair treatment of Hillary (Original Post)
Native
Apr 2016
OP
Hate and jealously. Here is a couple who worked hard and played by the rules,
Thinkingabout
Apr 2016
#3
WhiteTara
(29,719 posts)1. Here comes the bus!
radical noodle
(8,008 posts)2. K&R
Why is it that so-called Democrats cannot understand this?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)3. Hate and jealously. Here is a couple who worked hard and played by the rules,
Amassed a large net worth and so many people hate them for this. I am happy they moved up, he became president not because of his father's connections like the Bushes did but because they worked hard.
Native
(5,942 posts)4. Because the media is working overtime to keep them from understanding.
I wish to hell the Fairness Doctrine was back in place. 1987 - the year Reagan killed it.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)5. The leftists and 'independents-now-registered-as Dems'
are working overtime against Hillary. Just check out DailyKos and Salon for article after article slamming Hillary.
Native
(5,942 posts)10. Salon & HuffPo are the worst, but I've only seen pro-Hill posts by Kos. nt
Hekate
(90,755 posts)6. KnR for Bill Moyers
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)7. KNR Thank you!
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)8. K&R!
The media never much liked the Clintons to begin with. In this election season of anti-elitism, one reason why is instructive for its condescension. As Sally Quinn, Washington Post writer and society doyenne (she was executive editor Ben Bradlees wife), put it in a famous, huffy 1998 article, the Clintons had sullied the White House and Washington had been brought into disrepute by the actions of the president. What she was really saying was that they were country bumpkins, not part of the ritzy DC establishment that she inhabited, and they needed to be punished for it. The irony is that rather than scorn the establishment that scorned them, the Clintons got into some trouble trying desperately to enter it.
You know, this brought to mind something I read years ago about Truman and his wife. Because he was a haberdasher before becoming President, he was snubbed by society for not being "one of them".
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)9. Enormous K & R. Thanks for posting. Bravo, Mr. Moyers.