Hillary Clinton 3; Media 0
The all-out attack the media is carrying out with regard to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton is beginning to make them look bad. It appears the public is siding with Hillary. Big players like the New York Times and Washington Post have apparently made it their goal to publish everything negative they can about Hillary Clinton without regard to whether it is the true, partially true or totally false. It's apparent they are pushing reporters to write about anything 'Hillary' and not giving them time to vet their stories.
First was the supposed "email scandal" which thus far has proven not very scandalous. Then the ""Clinton Cash" book, which the NY Times, Washington Post and FOX news had exclusive agreements to get advance copies of, whose publisher is now rewriting parts of it because they were shown to be lies. Those lies weren't discovered by the outlets that got exclusives for the book.
More than a year ago the NY Times assigned Amy Chozick to cover Hillary fulltime. Until now her columns have been heavy on fluff, a recent example Another Busy Day for Bill Clinton, the Non-campaigning Campaigner. The Washington Post has published attack editorials and combined them with vitriolic columns so often one could perceive the entire paper is anti-Hillary. Just last week there was a front page headline 'Clinton e-mails related to Benghazi are released'. If one read the column you found out there was nothing in them and they "provide little fuel for a Republican investigation of her actions preceding the September 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi and an alleged administration cover-up in their aftermath." Only on page eleven where the column continued is the headline "No major openings for critics are apparent in messages." The same day Karen Tumulty writes Clinton's management style under scrutiny attacking her for listening to a wide range of people outside the 'organization chart' and passing their comments on to people within the organization. Tumulty concedes, "This is not a bad thing in itself" and provides no information showing where it would be. The next day Ruth Marcus has another attack column Clinton's unseemly speechifying in which she basically castigates Hillary for not taking her advice. Marcus does say, "Let me repeat, I am a fan of Hillary Clinton". With fans like Marcus who needs enemies. Marcus's recent diatribes against Clinton, and there have been many, needn't have happened if she didn't continue 'columnifying' so she can make money.
When the media has a day without something to attack they go after Hillary for not talking to them. The Washington Post spews Hillary Clinton hasn't answered a question from the media in twenty days, and from the NY Times Hillary Clinton, Acutely Aware of Pitfalls, Avoids Press on Campaign Trail.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/hillary-clinton-3-media-0_b_7442042.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
