If Clinton loses, blame the email controversy and the media

[question everything]

(snip)

My analysis of media coverage in the four weeks surrounding both parties’ national conventions found that her use of a private email server while secretary of State and other alleged scandal references accounted for 11% of Clinton’s news coverage in the top five television networks and six major newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times. Excluding neutral reports, 91% of the email-related news reports were negative in tone. Then, there were the references to her character and personal life, which accounted for 4% of the coverage; that was 92% negative.

While Trump declared open warfare on the mainstream media — and of late they have cautiously responded in kind — it has been Clinton who has suffered substantially more negative news coverage throughout nearly the whole campaign.

Few presidential candidates have been more fully prepared to assume the duties of the presidency than is Clinton. Yet, her many accomplishments as first lady, U.S. senator, and secretary of State barely surfaced in the news coverage of her candidacy at any point in the campaign. She may as well as have spent those years baking cookies.

How about her foreign, defense, social or economic policies? Don’t bother looking. Not a single one of Clinton’s policy proposals accounted for even 1% of her convention-period coverage; collectively, her policy stands accounted for a mere 4% of it. But she might be thankful for that: News reports about her stances were 71% negative to 29% positive in tone. Trump was quoted more often about her policies than she was. Trump’s claim that Clinton “created ISIS,” for example, got more news attention than her announcement of how she would handle Islamic State.

(snip)

Clinton’s emails and the accompanying narrative — “she can’t be trusted” — have been a defining feature of coverage from the campaign’s start. Only occasionally have reporters taken the narrative a step further. How important, exactly, are her emails in the larger context of presidential fitness? And just how large a transgression are they?

Judging from their stories, journalists rate the emails as being a highly important and very serious issue. They cover it heavily and with damning tone. When 90% or more of the coverage of a subject is negative, the verdict is in. Even good news gets turned to her disadvantage. For example, when the FBI announced that her emails did not violate the law, the Los Angeles Times ran a story focused on Trump’s response, quoting him as saying, “This is one of the most crooked politicians in history…. We have a rigged system, folks.”

More..

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-patterson-clinton-press-negative-coverage-20160921-snap-story.html

Thomas E. Patterson is a professor at Harvard and the author of “Informing the News.”

[Fresh_Start]

1. Blame the voters who didn't vote for her...and the voters who didn't vote at all

Bottom line, it is our duty as citizens to be engaged and informed.

[question everything]

2. Unfortunately, most voters get their infomration from the media or, worse, social media

thus, someone would keep saying that Clinton is "crooked" and it gets repeated in social media and no one bothers to correct it. You hear surveys reporting the Milleneals are going to stay home, or that do not trust either candidate. They repeat the "claims" that she is "crooked" and I want to ask them from where do they got this. And, I suppose, the reply would be "from the media" or from twitters, etc.

I will grant it that most voters are too busy or do not incline to find out information for themselves. One of the bad results is that in many states, especially in local races, they trust the "party endorsements."

[scscholar]

3. I disagree. No one cares about the emails.

I haven't heard anyone mention her two new woes this week.