Why does the media call Uranium One and the Clinton

[doc03]

Foundation (scandals)? Doesn't there have to be some evidence of wrong doing before it is a scandal?

[Takket]

1. You would think so...

[doc03]

2. Just pisses me off, was listening to MSNBC and they are talking about

the Republicans reopening investigations on the Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation Scandals.
That gives listeners the impression there was some kind of wrong doing.

[SHRED]

4. They are sloppy

Weekends are the worst on MSNBC.

[Mopar151]

9. Needs better parsing

Need to say something like "The unfounded investigations" With the newest Republican tack being "We're going to investigate whoever they run!!!", progressives need to get out in front of the whole "retalitory investigation" play that the Republicans have been trying to pull off since Nixon's demise.

[democratisphere]

3. media equals fox propoganda network and RW propoganda talk radio.

Alternative Facts.

[marybourg]

5. They are entertainment, not news, media.

Scandal is one of the best ways to attract the eyes that are their product. The solution is simple.

[spanone]

6. K&R...

[monmouth4]

7. I really cannot take Alex Witt under any circumstances so pretty much don't

watch MSNBC. I'm sick of news and tRump all the time anyway. DU is a far better news source.

[unblock]

8. The real scandal is false accusations against the Clintons. But youre a quarter century late

The word “scandal” now follows the word “Clinton” so automatically they can stop themselves even if they wanted to.

Which they don’t.

[still_one]

10. There media in this country died years ago

[Buzz cook]

11. Clinton Rules journalism.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/when-the-media-play-by-clinton-rules/

“If you are old enough to remember the 1990s,” Krugman wrote, “you remember the endless parade of alleged scandals, Whitewater above all—all of them fomented by right-wing operatives, all eagerly hyped by mainstream news outlets, none of which actually turned out to involve wrongdoing. The usual rules didn’t seem to apply; instead it was Clinton rules, under which innuendo and guilt by association were considered perfectly OK, in which the initial suggestion of lawbreaking received front-page headlines and the subsequent discovery that there was nothing there was buried in the back pages if it was reported at all.”