The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election, so why won't the media admit as much?
"Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which said the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College."
............................................
It goes on to say while it may not have been the only reason, however:
"from almost the moment that Trump won the White House, many mainstream journalists have been in denial about the impact of Comey’s letter. The article that led The New York Times’s website the morning after the election did not mention Comey or “FBI” even once — a bizarre development considering the dramatic headlines that the Times had given to the letter while the campaign was underway. Books on the campaign have treated Comey’s letter as an incidental factor, meanwhile. And even though Clinton herself has repeatedly brought up the letter — including in comments she made at an event in New York on Tuesday — many pundits have preferred to change the conversation when the letter comes up, waving it away instead of debating the merits of the case."
"The motivation for this seems fairly clear: If Comey’s letter altered the outcome of the election, the media may have some responsibility for the result. The story dominated news coverage for the better part of a week, drowning out other headlines, whether they were negative for Clinton (such as the news about impending Obamacare premium hikes) or problematic for Trump (such as his alleged ties to Russia). And yet, the story didn’t have a punchline: Two days before the election, Comey disclosed that the emails hadn’t turned up anything new."
"One can believe that the Comey letter cost Clinton the election without thinking that the media cost her the election — it was an urgent story that any newsroom had to cover. But if the Comey letter had a decisive effect and the story was mishandled by the press — given a disproportionate amount of attention relative to its substantive importance, often with coverage that jumped to conclusions before the facts of the case were clear — the media needs to grapple with how it approached the story. More sober coverage of the story might have yielded a milder voter reaction."
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
NO, it isn't a question of if the story was mishandled by the press, the story not only was mishandled by the press, it was also distorted and misrepresented by the press:
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/28/media-freak-out-fbi-letter-disregard-facts-and-run-gops-false-description-clinton-email-review/214184
"How one Congressman punked the media on the FBI letter about Clinton’s emails
No, the FBI did not say it would ‘reopen’ its investigation."
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-chaffetz-fbi-investigation-lies-e9fff5359102
"NY Times Floods Front Page With FBI Letter Stories While Acknowledging It Didn’t “Reopen” Clinton Server Inquiry"
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/30/ny-times-floods-front-page-fbi-letter-stories-while-acknowledging-it-didn-t-reopen-clinton-server/214202
= new reply since forum marked as read
