Hillary responds to the NYT article

[Gabi Hayes]

18. See fools for scandal. The NYT has had it in for the Clintons for at least 20 years

It’s been documented statistically their election coverage of her was MUCH less favorable to her than the pumpkin

one example

A December report from Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy delivered some sobering news for all those investigative reporters who may have supposed that their Trump exclusives were changing the world: None of them were breaking from the pack. “Clinton’s controversies got more attention than Trump’s (19 percent versus 15 percent) and were more focused,” noted study author Thomas E. Patterson. “Trump wallowed in a cascade of separate controversies. Clinton’s badgering had a laser-like focus. She was alleged to be scandal-prone. Clinton’s alleged scandals accounted for 16 percent of her coverage—four times the amount of press attention paid to Trump’s treatment of women and sixteen times the amount of news coverage given to Clinton’s most heavily covered policy position.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/25/studies-agree-media-gorged-on-hillary-clinton-email-coverage/?utm_term=

One more

Whatever her faults, what really hurts Clinton may lie not so much in herself as in a post-modernist fault of the media. First, they set up a narrative — typically the sort of novelistic narrative that will give reporters traction with their readers. Then they keep pounding on it, over years, so that, in this particular case, they aren’t really reporting on Hillary Clinton anymore, they are reporting on their version of Hillary Clinton. The more they report, the more invested they become in their version.

The media never much liked the Clintons to begin with. In this election season of anti-elitism, one reason why is instructive for its condescension. As Sally Quinn, Washington Post writer and society doyenne (she was executive editor Ben Bradlee’s wife), put it in a famous, huffy 1998 article, the Clintons had sullied the White House and Washington had “been brought into disrepute by the actions of the president.” What she was really saying was that they were country bumpkins, not part of the ritzy DC establishment that she inhabited, and they needed to be punished for it. The irony is that rather than scorn the establishment that scorned them, the Clintons got into some trouble trying desperately to enter it.

https://www.salon.com/2016/04/12/theyll_always_despise_her_the_media_has_its_hillary_narrative_and_theyre_sticking_to_it_partner/

They did exactly the same thing to Carter, along with his own party, from the very beginning of his term. He never had a chance.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Walter_Karp/Reaction_Launched_LUS.html