This is an interesting article at HuffingtonPost by Peter D. Rosenstein
The all-out attack the media is carrying out with regard to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton is beginning to make them look bad. It appears the public is siding with Hillary. Big players like the New York Times and Washington Post have apparently made it their goal to publish everything negative they can about Hillary Clinton without regard to whether it is the true, partially true or totally false. It's apparent they are pushing reporters to write about anything 'Hillary' and not giving them time to vet their stories.
Read More
First was the supposed "email scandal" which thus far has proven not very scandalous. Then the ""Clinton Cash" book, which the NY Times, Washington Post and FOX news had exclusive agreements to get advance copies of, whose publisher is now rewriting parts of it because they were shown to be lies. Those lies weren't discovered by the outlets that got exclusives for the book.
More than a year ago the NY Times assigned Amy Chozick to cover Hillary fulltime. Until now her columns have been heavy on fluff, a recent example Another Busy Day for Bill Clinton, the Non-campaigning Campaigner. The Washington Post has published attack editorials and combined them with vitriolic columns so often one could perceive the entire paper is anti-Hillary.
Do I need to add the disclaimer that I have despised most of the political media since the 90s? I have never been able to figure out why the supposed liberal media hates the Clintons and Gores so much. Is it because they are southerners who also happen to be smarter than them and God forbid better educated? Is it because they sincerely believe in service?
So Karen Tumulty does this whole big article on Clinton consulting with people outside of her power structure at State and passing on their information to people information/opinions to people inside to get their opinions etc.... Tumulty buries the information that this is not uncommon and then fails to prove that it is a bad thing at all. Really, what is the harm? One of the players is not liked by Obama's people? Information is information. When Clinton passed it on she asked people if they saw any value in it. She did not present it as fact or promote it as valuable.
Despite these attacks Hillary is maintaining her appeal to voters because she is focused on listening to, and talking with people one-on-one in Iowa, New Hampshire and every corner of the nation. She is presenting her platform which is resonating with people. They don't particularly care the nattering class who talk to each other as they commute on Amtrak between New York and Washington isn't happy. They are much more concerned with the issues impacting their daily lives and are listening to and responding positively to Hillary when she says she is for; raising the minimum wage, providing paid maternity and paternity leave, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, working to develop policies that will impact climate change, reducing student debt, and saying her litmus test for appointing Supreme Court Justices is they vote to overturn Citizens United and take some of the obscene amounts of money out of political campaigns. Her campaign and the platform she is outlining are resonating with women, minorities, young people and families because they know she has spent a lifetime fighting for them.
We have more than a year left before the election. We can hope all we want for a better media, but we're not going to get one. I think we have to reward those doing a good job by promoting their work and thanking their advertisers. Not just those covering Clinton fairly, but Sanders and down ticket races.
I'd be shocked really if we ever got back to the days when political journalists, forget pundits, required three good sources before publishing a piece or airing a story.
P.S...... I am very aware that one of the sources of information Clinton passed on at State was Sidney Blumenthal. She wanted to hire him at state and Emanuel said no, that it would create too much drama because he had written some negative press about Obama during the primaries. I can understand that, it's fair considering Clinton got almost everyone else she wanted and that is unprecedented. Some of the information he passed on was wrong but he is hardly the scumbag the press is making him out to be. Yes he was paid by the foundation at that time because HE WAS WORKING FOR THE FOUNDATION.
Huffington Post article
Here are the articles Rosenstein used as sources in the article:
New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News strike deals for anti-Clinton research
Clinton Cash" publisher corrects errors in book
Another Busy Day for Bill Clinton the Non Campaigning Campaigner
Hillary Clinton v. the Right-Wing
What Hillary Clinton’s e-mails tell us about her management style
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Hillary Clinton hasn’t answered a question from the media in 20 days
Hillary Clinton, Acutely Aware of Pitfalls, Avoids Press on Campaign Trail