Posted on 09/07/2016 7:20:33 AM PDT by Maceman
There’s an argument going around that the media has it out for Hillary Clinton. Over at The New York Times, Paul Krugman doesn’t like the coverage of her foundation, and frets that she’s being portrayed as an out-of-touch stiff a la Al Gore. Journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, meanwhile, recently wrote a long post on Medium despairing over the media’s habit of always looking for a Clinton scandal.
Both Krugman and Jarvis have some fair points to make. Some reporting on Clinton’s emails and her family’s foundation have been a bit too breathless – all journalists are concerned with traffic to their stories, which lends itself to an unfortunate tendency to oversell shoddy goods.
It happens. Not all coverage is good or fair. But this idea that Bill, Hillary and their defenders have proffered for decades – that there exists a pronounced anti-Clinton bias in the press – is off base.
Does your average political reporter harbor much affection for Hillary Clinton? Probably not, which is to their credit, because in terms of policies the Clintons are likely right where most journalists are politically. It’s no secret that journalists tend to lean center-left, and it would be quite hard, if not impossible, to find a mainstream reporter who’s voting for Donald Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
ROFL...really, the media IS the Clinton Campaign STAFF!!!
Sorry, this line of B.S. isn’t going to fly....
She is gone, done, finished, over...
...and another bites the dust...
Well that’s a relief. Was worried about that for a sec. Now, can we please get back to bashing Trump?
MSM is in the tank for Hillary?
Thanks but no thanks for telling us what we knew all along.
Trump is going to win despite them.
The Clinton campaign writes another story for REUTERS.
They ask that so their can feign objectivity.
No, the media is not biased AGAINST Hillary.
Yes, the media IS biased FOR Hillary.
The fifth-column leftist media are firmly liplocked to Hellary’s diapered keister.
This has to be the Onion. No serious journalist would ever write such drivel and expect anything but gut wrenching laughter.
Why is the Media scared to death of the Clintons ?
Or Salon...ROFL...have you noticed that all the rest of the media, online, on T. V., on radio is all the same as the Onion and Salon? ROFL...
This fact points out a truly disturbing reality they face.
“despairing over the media’s habit of always looking for a Clinton scandal...”
As if they actually have to look!
I think they live in a bubble and do not want to be an outsider especially on the cocktail circuit. Who knows what types of blackmail go on behind the scenes. I do know some who get in the way of the Clinton crime syndicate may end up swimming with the fishes.
Yea I was getting real worried about the anti Hillary bias in the media.
Then how did she and Bill make their money? They didn't have it when they started politics. Speaking fees accounts for a fraction of it, but even then the speaking fees look like payoffs.
Wow. Upside down.
If the crap ever hits the fan, I think IRS agents have a beter chance of avoiding becoming lamppost decorations than the press.
You don’t have to believe the Clinton Foundation is a massive slush fund to ask why reactionary Gulf State monarchies would bestow a progressive charity with millions of dollars.. . . in fact, you have to be in deep denial not to apply the constitution’s standard to the Clinton Foundation:That is, if you know that a government employee of any sort has, under whatever pretext and even if nominally not directly, accepted a large sum of money from a foreign government the presumption is that it is a corrupt deal. Hillary checked her right to solicit money from a foreign government at the door when she entered the Senate - actually, when her husband entered the White House, and she was in an inmate relationship with the POTUS - and did not regain that right until she left government in 2013.
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No person holding any office of profit or trust under [the US government] shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
It is true that the Senate confirmed her while having a general knowledge of the Clinton Foundation, and still confirmed her appointment to Secretary of State - but the House of Representatives never voted to allow Mrs. Clinton to be simultaneously the Sec of State and a principal in an organization accepting money from any, let alone many, foreign governments.
Mr. Clinton claims that the Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good. Even if so - you are at liberty to assume that I doubt it - Hillary Clinton was obligated to make that case to Congress before the fact of accepting money from a foreign government. She did not even try, and the Constitution directs us to assume the worst.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.