Posted on 09/19/2017 5:01:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
Well, it looks like Hillary Clinton is moving onto the latest offensive in her rampage against those who she feels contributed to her defeat in the 2016 election: the media. At Recode in May, a tech conference in California, she said that the media covered her emails like it was Pearl Harbor. She also says that the press didn’t do their jobs last year, and that they “can’t bear to face their own role in helping elect Trump, from providing him free airtime to giving my emails three times more coverage that all the issues affecting people’s lives combined.”
Seriously, lady—weren’t you the one who attacked Trump on his temperament, his antics on the campaign stump, and the hot mic moment with that Access Hollywood tape, where he made some off-color remarks about women. No one cared about that last year, and no one cares about it now. The issues you felt were important, minimum wage hikes and a partial push for tuition-free college, all register miserably with voters. In fact, in the last debate, even Hillary-leaners trusted Trump’s economic talk more than your pitches, Madame secretary. You didn’t talk about the issues voters cared about; Trump did. He talked about trade, manufacturing, and job creation. You harped on a video of some locker room talk. It wasn’t the magic bullet. It was just a waste of your most valuable resource in all of politics: time.
Amy Chozick, a reporter for The New York Times who’s writing a memoir on the 2016 campaign, spoke to CNN’s Brian Stelter about Clinton’s remarks concerning the media. She agreed that the media doesn’t like to look inward and say that they’re wrong. Then again, she added “the way she [Clinton] presents it in the book is a little bit like it was our job to get Hillary Clinton elected.” Chozick added that it was the media's job to inform voters about the candidates and how their agenda will impact their lives. She admits that the press could’ve done better.
Over at CNBC, John Harwood agreed with Clinton’s assessment on the media’s obsession with her emails, tweeting “there is no doubt media coverage exaggerated the significance of Clinton's e-mails in a way that was not just dumb but obviously ridiculous.”
there is no doubt media coverage exaggerated the significance of Clinton's e-mails in a way that was not just dumb but obviously ridiculous https://t.co/uNlLrwAkqr— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) September 17, 2017
No, Hillary was a presidential candidate. She skirted federal regulations on preserving these communications while she was secretary of state by having a private email server, and it is a story when a presidential candidate might have mishandled classified information due to security protocols not being followed. Thousands of emails on that server were retroactively classified, or up-classified, upon review by the FBI. At least three were classified at the time they were sent or received, but the Bureau said that they weren’t properly marked, though Hillary, as secretary of state, is an original classifying authority. She didn’t know what information could be considered sensitive? Moreover, maybe Clinton could have got in front of this fiasco, but her inability to come clean only increased scrutiny. Story after story that she doled out to explain why she had a private server fell apart within days due to contrary evidence. For example, she said she went to the State Department to say this private system was allowed, and that she got permission. The truth is that she didn’t ask and if she had, State Department officials would not have allowed it. It all relates to her judgment, which in this case, was incredibly poor. That matters.
Admitting that you suck is the first step to recovery. For Hillary, she’s afflicted with this notion that people like her. It’s a terrible addiction made all the more tragic that no one can really stand her and they hope she just goes away. For Democrats, they’re hoping she vanishes before she does more damage to the party.
Chozick is right; it’s not the media’s job to elect Hillary. That was her job and she failed. She was a terrible candidate, an atrocious campaigner, and the results were very much in line with those qualities.
Oh, and she did call her email server as her "most important" error, but whatever.
No candidate in modern history ever received more media support than Hi Larry.
This fully illustrates just how bad a candidate she was.
Trump out campaigned her by a factor of 10 even though he was relentlessly attacked 24/7 by that same media.
This fully illustrates just how bad a candidate she was.
It wasn't? It sure looked like it was!
Maybe that explains why she ran "Trump is a meanie!" ads 10-1, maybe 20-1, over ads with those "issues" in Pennsylvania on every commercial break on every news show on every network for three months.
Hillary is working much harder to prove she’s not a loser than she ever worked to win the election for a position she thought was hers by entitlement. I’m glad we never saw this much energy from her side during the election (except when her staff were blocking cameras and tossing her around like a side of beef).
Perhaps, but than I didn’t watch her ads or any other political ads.
If the press had honestly, truly, done their jobs she’d have lost by 40 points.
It was TOP priority by the media to get Clinton into the third Clinton Reich.
This bimbo and many like her are disingenuous and full of sour grapes because the venom spewed from Clinton on her excuse tour has thrown the fake news whores under the bus. America can do without Clintons and the agenda driven propagandists disguised as journalists.
Political ads don't convince me to vote for someone or against someone. I make my mind up by myself and don't need anyone to tell me who to vote for.
The same with commercial ads. I don't need to tell me what to buy. No matter how cute or good a commercial is, and there are some.
It is true that the press were bemusedly benign toward Trump during the primaries. They thought they were helping to fragment the republicans; besides, he made for interesting news, day in and day out.
BUT... once he had secured the nomination, the press became utterly poisonous toward Trump. They knew he would lose; but they wanted to make sure he lost BADLY.
Then, a funny thing happened...
How dare Hillary state what is blatantly obvious to any 5 year old ?
Even now the media refuses to investigate voter fraud.
No, they merely provided her debate questions in advance, stacked debate moderators with leftists who posited one-sided questions, let loose a torrent of fake polls designed to boost her electability, distorted Trump’s words at every turn, pronouncing him a racist, misogynist, homophobe and nazi and ignored Trump’s good qualities while dismissing Hillary’s bad ones.
In short, they did everything imaginable to get Hillary elected and to act as if it wasn’t good enough for her is the epitome of undeserved entitlement.
“...the Third Clinton Reich”
I like the phrase, but doesn’t that describe the Obama regime?
I agree - totally in the bag for Clintoooon-
“Amy Chozick, a reporter for The New York Times”
They meant to say-for BIG BROTHER- AMY has just
sunk her career- she will be laid off in 1,2,3, sec-
Just like - Jedediah Bila on the View- ask any type
of NON SCRIPTED question and you are gone
ANY Criticism of the royal family- bill,hitlerly,chelsea,
huma, or extended family- balsio,shumer Pelosi,warren-
will get you a one way ticket to hell
” she said that the media covered her emails like it was Pearl Harbor”
Change the word “emails” to “crimes” throughout the article, and it makes more sense.
“Admitting that you suck is the first step to recovery. For Hillary, she’s afflicted with this notion that people like her. It’s a terrible addiction made all the more tragic that no one can really stand her and they hope she just goes away.”
BINGO
The media did not give free air time to Trump. Trump simply would not turn down interviews from hostile reporters.
OTOH, Hillary would not accept interviews from anyone.
The first year Hillary played the inaccessible candidate game. There were rope and fence barriers to access. There is video of news people rushing from one spot to another just to get a shot of her exiting an SUV.
The classic pic in this inaccessible early campaign was Hillary in dark glasses ingnito in a Chipotle restaurant line.
Trump, meanwhile, would do interviews with anyone at any time.
Hillary definitely cut access throughout, and especially after the 911 physical collapse.
Perhaps she thought she was so far ahead in the polls, indicating she believed the polls, that she could only hurt herself by public interviews and appearances. The other possibility is that Hillary knows she’s awful in front of a camera and with open ended questions from reporters, even friendly reporters.
This is proof to me that the media isn’t neutral-—they are very biased.
They are supposed to REPORT news-—not MAKE news.
The more the public realizes that the media has lost it’s purpose, the more they will become not relevant.
Couldn’t happen to a worst bunch of people, IMO
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.