Maybe Hillary should start attacking the media?

[Onlooker]

It works for Trump. Trump attacks the MSM, and they back off and legitimize or ignore so much of what he does. They certainly don't scrutinize him the way that have Hillary.

- Why did the media fail to investigate Trump's obviously questionable medical report, yet it has helped publicize the sleazy Trump campaign's reports on Hillary's medical condition? They still haven't fully vetted that report or his doctor.
- Why do they use right-wing talking points to talk about Hillary's physical health but not question whether Trump has a testosterone problem, given his high-pitched voice, lack of facial hair, extra body fat, and moodiness?
- Why does the media cover the negatives of the Clinton Foundation without providing nearly as much coverage of all it has done both for struggling people and our nation's image? Why doesn't it compare the accomplishments of the Clinton Foundation to the Trump Foundation, especially given that Trump is, by his own admission, worth $10 billion?
- Whatever happened to the possible fraud Trump committed when he pledged the proceeds from his vodka and book sales would go to charity, but there is no evidence that promise was anything more than false advertising?
- While the media certainly delighted in Bill Clinton's sexual stories, why are they ignoring to a large extent Trump's adultery, his sexist and perverse boasts, and the lawsuit against him that he raped a 13 year old?
- Why aren't Trump's bankruptcies, where he walked away with money his pocket while leaving working people, small businesses, and towns screwed being examined under the light of matters such as integrity and his honesty, which is the bar they established for anything Hillary does?
- Why aren't they investigating Trump's mob ties?
- Why are they quite silent as the Trump campaign violates the spirit of the first amendment by banning media outlets and reporters from their events?
- Why is the media investigating every single email released by Hillary, but not doing nearly the same thing on Trump's three thousand five hundred lawsuits?
- Why is the media giving so much more attention to Hillary's emails, which were never intended for public scrutiny, than Trump's countless public statements about women when he was on Howard Stern and in other public venues?
- Why is the media dropping the ball on Trump's Putin connection and his urging Putin to hack more emails, but continuing to harp on every detail of Hillary's emails?

It seems like if you insult and intimidate the media, it falls in line. If you respect it, it goes after you. Certainly something needs to be done. Trump is a lunatic, and most people know it, but the media is making him into some sort of communications genius. He's not, if the media would do its job.

[bobGandolf]

1. Works for Trump.

[newrandomuser]

2. I seriously think it's because Trump really doesn't say no to a press conference

This is why they give him a pass on so many issues.

I think if Hillary was to at least grant one press conference they would back off after.

[GWC58]

3. You think so?

I don't, not really. Press conference, no press conference. It doesnt matter to media. Remember it's Hillary!

[newrandomuser]

6. I don't know, if she was to call one we wouldn't hear Trumps name for a week.

The reason they give him so much coverage is because he talks to them.

If Hillary would just be her self at the conference I bet she would go up 5 points in the polls.

[Orcrist]

4. What's the old saying?

Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.

[UCmeNdc]

5. Maybe Hillary should write her own investigative news articles and drop them off to the media.

The lazy reporters might print them if all of the work is already done.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/09/cnn-and-fox-news-keep-mum-about-trump-pay

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. No. Surrogates can attack the media.

Hillary makes herself available for interviews, but she and her campaign need to own a larger portion of the new cycle, and she can do it in positive ways. Her surrogates can be more controversial.

[Coolest Ranger]

8. Trust me on this guys

she's better off not saying anything. The endless news cycle if she says anything. They will shower cable news with wall to wall coverage. No her team is advising her right

[Amimnoch]

9. Very risky. She can't afford to be the "emotional woman"

As a woman in politics she is very hamstrung in the methodology she can use when she attacks an opponent. If she's "too soft" spoken, then she's a "weak woman". If she speaks too forcefully or too loudly then she's "emotional" or "unstable".

For fuck sake, even when she uses decades of political training, polish, and poise, she's still criticized as being too "robotic".

Perfect example: Trump 2012 as the head of a presidential ticket, and Sarah Palin 2008 as the VP pick of a presidential ticket. Personally, I find both equally detestable politics wise, but ask yourself: If both used much of the same rhetoric, and both said sooo many stupid and politically incorrect things why is one surging in the polls and a darling of the media, and the other was roasted and criticized constantly by the media and the public? What was the one thing that was really different between these 2 equally detestable candidates? Hmmm.. Seems to me the only real difference is one had a cock, the other a vagina.

On an emotional level myself, I'd LOVE to see Hillary slam the hell out of the media, and that atrocious jackass she's running against. While it'd be fun to watch, and very enjoyable to hear, at the end of the day I think it'd do more to harm her campaign than help it.

She has to play by a different set of rules than he does. It sucks shit that she does, but that's the political reality of it imo.

[baldguy]

10. You're forgetting the massive double-standard Clinton is working against.

And the free ride the media give to Trump.

[Rose Siding]

11. Exactly. Short memories. Remember the shit she took for IDing media role in vast rw conspiracy?

It's not only a Clinton Double Standard, but a sexist one as well.

[rurallib]

12. NPR, in their morning news portion, claimed Clinton was not generating

enough headlines.
WTF! She gives major speeches they ignore while Doofus gets huge headlines by going to Mexico to insult one of our major trading partners.
NPR is as bad, sometimes worse than the others because they have a patina of respectability.

If she did give news conferences there would be only 2 questions: Emails and Clinton Foundation, although some wise ass might bring up Bill's blowjobs. So why fucking bother?

[Coyotl]

13. Wrong. Very, very wrong. Don't pick fights you will lose.

The media controls what they say. That isn't going to change.