Krugman: Why are the media objectively pro-Trump?

[pnwmom]

Because they are the cool kids bullying the nerdy classmate.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/why-are-the-media-objectively-pro-trump/

Because they are, at this point. It’s not even false equivalence: compare the amount of attention given to the Clinton Foundation despite absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, and attention given to Trump Foundation, which engaged in more or less open bribery — but barely made a dent in news coverage. Clinton was harassed endlessly over failure to give press conferences, even though she was doing lots of interviews; Trump violated decades of tradition by refusing to release his taxes, amid strong suspicion that he is hiding something; the press simply dropped the subject.

Brian Beutler argues that it’s about protecting the media’s own concerns, namely access. But I don’t think that works. It doesn’t explain why the Clinton emails were a never-ending story but the disappearance of millions of George W. Bush emails wasn’t, or for that matter Jeb Bush’s deletion of records; the revelation that Colin Powell did, indeed, offer HRC advice on how to have private email the way he did hasn’t even been reported by some major news organizations.

And I don’t see how the huffing and puffing about the foundation — which “raised questions”, but where the media were completely unwilling to accept the answers they found — fits into this at all.

No, it’s something special about Clinton Rules. I don’t really understand it. But it has the feeling of a high school clique bullying a nerdy classmate because it’s the cool thing to do.

SNIP

Hard to believe that such pettiness could have horrifying consequences. But I am very scared.

[underpants]

1. Great short read but he missed the horse race element.

that horse is just NOT getting up.

[Hortensis]

9. This has been going on for over a quarter century.

There does seem to be an element of personal malice in it. One journalist writing about it a couple years ago said that many of his colleagues seemed to be personally invested in taking her down, as a group even offended that they had not been able to. As another said, that is now the golden ring for the MSM.

How it started? With many things for many little reasons, no doubt. With the 24/7/365 maw to be fed and Judicial Watch's quick-learner realization that it could feed it with fake lawsuits interspersed with carefully strung out filings, insinuations, allegations, and promises of indictment to come.

Another observer pointed out that the press developed a prurient focus in its coverage of Bill Clinton, a lowering of professional standards that never returned to whatever it was.

Many have pointed out that the only means of personal justification for the dirty lies promoted is to believe and prove them warranted.

Background manipulators have worked for 40 years to corrupt everything in their way and turn them all to their use, universities, government positions, why not the press? How did the press become completely for-profit when it was once considered by its owners to be noble, important work in the public service?

[joeybee12]

2. It's the elitism of the press and well, they're from Arkansas, and the media

has always treated them like "hicks," and the treatment has gotten worse since they realized both Hillary and Bill are way smarter than the dolts in the press.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

3. She's been the target of a relentless smear campaign for decades

That is why everything she does is put under a microscope. That being said...once she is elected she will prove to be one of the best, most effective presidents in history.

[pnwmom]

5. No, they don't "bash him at every opportunity." They're making a false equivalence between

her flaws and his hate. Between her foibles and his frauds.

For example, they tore down the Clinton Foundation, a Foundation that has reduced by 90% the cost of HIV drugs for half the HIV sufferers around the world, pretending that there was something wrong with her meeting with some of the donors. And the pretended that the bad "optics" were equivalently bad to the optics of Trump giving money to the Florida Attorney general before she dropped her investigation of Trump University.

And the media pretended that the only solution to the Clinton Foundation is to shut it down completely -- while never addressing what to do with the 500 businesses that Trump owns and will be affected by almost any decision he makes as President.

[Democat]

8. Nice pro-Trump anti-liberal first post!

Bye.

[Democat]

6. The NY Times is one of the worst of all

Maybe Krugman could ask his bosses whey they are so pro-Russia and pro-Trump?

[pnwmom]

7. I bet he is asking them that. He certainly doesn't exempt them from his criticism here. n/t

[pansypoo53219]

10. RATINGS. WHORES. a close race gets MORE RATINGS!!! SHE WAS TROUNCING HIM. OH NOES!!!

they FIXED that problem did they not.

i SAID she was being GOREd. THEY ELECTED GWB. oh wait. the supreme court INSTALLED the twit. TO PRERVE THEIR MAJORITY. CHEATING and MORE cheating.