Hillary and the media: Dreadful coverage of 2016 had echoes of the past
MONDAY, SEP 18, 2017 08:35 AM EDT
Hillary and the media: Dreadful coverage of 2016 had echoes of the past
Media's distorted and derisive Clinton coverage was steeped in sexism, but the underlying problem is nothing new
HEATHER DIGBY PARTON
I’m not going to review Hillary Clinton’s book “What Happened” since there are approximately 12,576 reviews out there already, with more to come. But I do want to discuss one issue that came up in the book that has been addressed in a couple of those reviews. That would be the fact that the press regularly and tiresomely slags Clinton for her failures in the 2016 campaign, but have still completely failed to acknowledge their own.
There are many aspects of this story that are unique to Clinton. As Politico’s Jonathan Allen, then of Vox, wrote at the beginning of the campaign, there was an establishment media groupthink about her that was obvious, although the press itself seemed completely oblivious to it. (I wrote about this on Salon in real time as it unfolded and after the race was over. )
Allen put it bluntly:
The Clinton rules are driven by reporters’ and editors’ desire to score the ultimate prize in contemporary journalism: the scoop that brings down Hillary Clinton and her family’s political empire. At least in that way, Republicans and the media have a common interest.
Indeed they did. (As it turns out, maybe some members of the Russian government too.) And one aspect of the coverage verged on outright corruption: the “deal” the New York Times and the Washington Post made with a Steve Bannon associate to publish excerpts of a book of lies called “Clinton Cash” that set the tone for much of the coverage to come.
more
http://www.salon.com/2017/09/18/hillary-and-the-media-dreadful-coverage-of-2016-had-echoes-of-the-past/
= new reply since forum marked as read
