Ex-Times editor's comments about media bias against Clinton

[book_worm]

It's not quite proof of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton once bemoaned, but as validations of grievances go, this is pretty good: Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson thinks the Democratic presidential front-runner's private email scandal -- a story that, by the way, the Times broke -- has been overblown. And she thinks the media, in general, have subjected Clinton to a greater level of scrutiny than they would a comparable male candidate.

She does get more scrutiny," Abramson said, adding one possible explanation that she attributed to a former student of hers at Harvard, where she is a visiting lecturer: "We, for some reason, expect total purity from a woman candidate."

Abramson is hardly the first to offer this sort of critique. As Times public editor (and incoming Washington Post media columnist) Margaret Sullivan chronicled last fall, readers and press critics have also accused the paper of covering Clinton with undue harshness -- though not always because of her gender.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/ex-top_new_york_times_editors.html

[still_one]

1. There sure is. comments such as "Hillary is shrill, Hillary is too harsh, Hillary yells", etc really

seem like a major issue with a lot of talking heads these days.

Why don't these talking heads just come out and say it, Hillary is a powerful woman, and that really bothers some people. My answer to them is:

tough shit, deal with it

[Her Sister]

2. thanks for this!

Haha! To the media: lots of us were not fooled! Nice try!

In any case, just subscribed to the podcast they mentioned on iTunes, so will listen to the interview: Thrush OFF Topic.