General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe embarrassing epilogue to the media's obsession with Hillary Clinton's emails
Maybe Clintons emails shouldnt have been covered as if they were the single most important issue facing 2016 voters?
By Ian Millhiser Oct 22, 2019, 8:10am EDT
We can all finally stop worrying about Hillary Clintons emails.
Last week, Congress received a brief, nine-page report from the State Department, which summarizes the departments investigation into Hillary Clintons use of a personal email account to conduct work business while she was secretary of state. The report can be fairly summarized in two sentences: She shouldnt have done that. But it wasnt that big of a deal.
Thus, America finally has closure on a minor scandal that many of the nations most powerful and influential news editors treated as if it were the most important issue facing voters in the 2016 election. In just six days, according to an analysis of 2016 coverage published in the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), the New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clintons emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election. And the Times was hardly alone in this regard.
By contrast, the Timess piece on the State Department report concluding that Her Emails werent actually that big of a deal ran on page A16 in print. (It was featured somewhat more prominently on the Timess online homepage.) Similarly, data provided to Vox by the liberal group Media Matters indicates that television news all three major cable networks plus all three broadcast stations spent a total of less than 56 minutes combined on the new State Department report.
A screenshot of the front page of the New York Times on October 29, 2016. A letter from then-FBI Director James Comey brought Hillary Clintons emails back into news coverage just before Election Day.
The State Departments report reaches two broad conclusions. Clintons use of a private email system to conduct official business added an increased degree of risk that classified information would be compromised. But there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.
</snip>
Good take...
tblue37
(65,490 posts)spanone
(135,886 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)Look at us now.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Only one person has said anything or written anything in a Apologetic Manner about his or her false Equivalency Reporting over those so called criminal E-Mails. Believe his name was Toobin? Still remember him wailing against Clinton umteen times one MSNBC especially with Andrea Mitchell Greenspan.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Are most of the 7 media giants actually for ethnic cleansing of people from their homeland? Pro extreme cruelty against children as a national policy?
Pro massive transfer of the nation's wealth and power to a new kleptocracy including themselves?
That last. But we shouldn't cross Russian compromat of decision-makers off the list of possibilities either. Whether that's the case for some or not at all, though, NYT, AP, MSNBC, CNN etc are all assets for Russian if not Russian assets. And they know it.
2naSalit
(86,804 posts)jayfish
(10,039 posts)who needs a Russian?
Takket
(21,634 posts)The media is well versed in conflating nonsense at the behest of the GOP to help promote bothsideserism. Gore sighing in a debate... swiftboating... but her emails...
And look forward to the media balancing out everything horrible drumpf has done with Pocahontas or Hunter Biden all through 2020.