He's got a good name-as he's a good friend to Hillary Clinton and, therefore, a good friend of mine.
"ARI MELBER: But some Clinton supporters are marshaling evidence suggesting there is a double standard when it comes to the political media's coverage of Hillary Clinton, especially the Washington press corps, which may bring its own historical and spousal baggage to what should be objective campaign coverage. In political circles the current test for Clinton bias is this email story, which depending on which reporters you rely on for coverage is either the most lopsided, conspiratorial scrutnity of a digital correspondence trail in the modern era or is a truly criminal scandal. Clinton backers are especially upset with The New York Times which they believe fixated on the email as a scandal far before any facts confirmed that type of lens. A close Clinton ally, David Brock, summed it up this week saying "As it concerns Clinton coverage, The New York Times will have a special place in hell." Now the Timeserroneously reported in July that the feds had a criminal investigation into the former secretary of state's private email sever. The paper then had to revise parts of those reports, and the fact remains that Clinton is not a target of any criminal probe, although the FBI is reviewing these classification issues."
http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/09/14/on-msnbc-david-goodfriend-slams-medias-clinton/205513
But even here let's correct the record. The FBI is reviewing this not because there is any probable cause that Hillary did anything wrong-and although the media glosses over this point-the FBI is not investigating her at all, just the system in place.
But the reason for the review is because Right wing legal groups-notably Citizen;s United and Judicial Watch-have carpet bombed the State Department in FOIA requests. And by the way: Melber is correct that Clinton supporters have given the Times special scrutiny, but he ought to know that MSNBC is hardly innocent in unbalanced Clinton bashing itself.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/melissa-harris-perry-and-could-it-be.html
And on MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell deserves his own special place in hell for trying to out Fox Fox News in his pious outrage over Hillary's emails.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/lawrence-odonnell-sides-with-citizens.html
O'Donnell had the gall to claim allege without any proof that Hillary has no respect for the FOIA-as if she hasn't bent over backwards-to a fault in my opinion-to be transparent even apologizing for not doing anything wrong.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/ok-heres-what-hillary-should-have-said.html
Lawrence, I don't know what happened to you, if one of the things you did on your vacation was get a full lobotomy-you used to be a good man. Now I think you'd be happier handing with Sean Hannity-think of it: you could interview Trent Gowdy everyday.
What you fail to see is that the one who has abused FOIA is not Hillary but Citizen's United and friends who have put in all these frivilous FOIA requests with no aim but trying to sway an election.
"ARI MELBER: But some Clinton supporters are marshaling evidence suggesting there is a double standard when it comes to the political media's coverage of Hillary Clinton, especially the Washington press corps, which may bring its own historical and spousal baggage to what should be objective campaign coverage. In political circles the current test for Clinton bias is this email story, which depending on which reporters you rely on for coverage is either the most lopsided, conspiratorial scrutnity of a digital correspondence trail in the modern era or is a truly criminal scandal. Clinton backers are especially upset with The New York Times which they believe fixated on the email as a scandal far before any facts confirmed that type of lens. A close Clinton ally, David Brock, summed it up this week saying "As it concerns Clinton coverage, The New York Times will have a special place in hell." Now the Timeserroneously reported in July that the feds had a criminal investigation into the former secretary of state's private email sever. The paper then had to revise parts of those reports, and the fact remains that Clinton is not a target of any criminal probe, although the FBI is reviewing these classification issues."
http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/09/14/on-msnbc-david-goodfriend-slams-medias-clinton/205513
But even here let's correct the record. The FBI is reviewing this not because there is any probable cause that Hillary did anything wrong-and although the media glosses over this point-the FBI is not investigating her at all, just the system in place.
But the reason for the review is because Right wing legal groups-notably Citizen;s United and Judicial Watch-have carpet bombed the State Department in FOIA requests. And by the way: Melber is correct that Clinton supporters have given the Times special scrutiny, but he ought to know that MSNBC is hardly innocent in unbalanced Clinton bashing itself.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/melissa-harris-perry-and-could-it-be.html
And on MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell deserves his own special place in hell for trying to out Fox Fox News in his pious outrage over Hillary's emails.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/lawrence-odonnell-sides-with-citizens.html
O'Donnell had the gall to claim allege without any proof that Hillary has no respect for the FOIA-as if she hasn't bent over backwards-to a fault in my opinion-to be transparent even apologizing for not doing anything wrong.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/ok-heres-what-hillary-should-have-said.html
Lawrence, I don't know what happened to you, if one of the things you did on your vacation was get a full lobotomy-you used to be a good man. Now I think you'd be happier handing with Sean Hannity-think of it: you could interview Trent Gowdy everyday.
What you fail to see is that the one who has abused FOIA is not Hillary but Citizen's United and friends who have put in all these frivilous FOIA requests with no aim but trying to sway an election.
That is the abuse and how do you not see it?
Ok, so here's is Goodfriend's great response to Melber:
"DAVID GOODFRIEND: I salute Nate Silver for pointing out, these are businesses, including MSNBC, The New York Times, you know. You want to sell advertising, and a boring story doesn't make for high ratings. Let's just put that out there, ok? The second thing is, I saw some very interesting news about a federal judge saying there's nothing wrong with what Hillary Clinton did with respect to deleting personal e-mails. Where is the big coverage of that? Oh, wouldn't you know it, that's just buried, deep, deep, deep. I had to research and Google and try to find it. Oh, here it is! So come on. Don't tell me there's this even-handed treatment of Hillary Clinton -- everybody in the press corps seems to love the gotcha game. But I'll tell you what. If I have learned anything from the Clintons, we've seen this movie before. You punch them and punch them and punch them and they come back up. And that's what the American people respect most. That strength. That ability to come back. It's not how you're doing when you're riding high. It's when you're against the ropes, how do you do? And I'll tell you something, my money is on the Clintons."
I couldn't agree more with his last point that the Clinton's always fight back and despite the awesome breadth of the Right wing conspiracy that has been marshaled against them for 24 years-which the Times and even MSNBC have unfortunately been complicit in-they always prevail over it.
This is a point I made in a chat I had with a Bernie supporter yesterday at Democratic Underground. Bernie may not attack Hillary directly and he would never breath a word about emailgate but he doesn't have to. He still benefits from the press' obsession with it.
Ok, so here's is Goodfriend's great response to Melber:
"DAVID GOODFRIEND: I salute Nate Silver for pointing out, these are businesses, including MSNBC, The New York Times, you know. You want to sell advertising, and a boring story doesn't make for high ratings. Let's just put that out there, ok? The second thing is, I saw some very interesting news about a federal judge saying there's nothing wrong with what Hillary Clinton did with respect to deleting personal e-mails. Where is the big coverage of that? Oh, wouldn't you know it, that's just buried, deep, deep, deep. I had to research and Google and try to find it. Oh, here it is! So come on. Don't tell me there's this even-handed treatment of Hillary Clinton -- everybody in the press corps seems to love the gotcha game. But I'll tell you what. If I have learned anything from the Clintons, we've seen this movie before. You punch them and punch them and punch them and they come back up. And that's what the American people respect most. That strength. That ability to come back. It's not how you're doing when you're riding high. It's when you're against the ropes, how do you do? And I'll tell you something, my money is on the Clintons."
I couldn't agree more with his last point that the Clinton's always fight back and despite the awesome breadth of the Right wing conspiracy that has been marshaled against them for 24 years-which the Times and even MSNBC have unfortunately been complicit in-they always prevail over it.
This is a point I made in a chat I had with a Bernie supporter yesterday at Democratic Underground. Bernie may not attack Hillary directly and he would never breath a word about emailgate but he doesn't have to. He still benefits from the press' obsession with it.
Think of it: it's the best of both worlds. He benefits it without any of the negative side effects by being the one to do the dirty work. It's a win-win.
During this campaign Bernie has received exactly zero negative scrutiny whereas Hillary has been hit every day of this campaign with razzing-that has nothing to do with issues: emailgate, Biden talk, and razzing her about Bernie momentum.
So he has gotten a cakewalk so far. It will be interesting to see how he does in a debate format where he can't totally dictate the conversation.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/should-hillary-go-on-attack-against.html
During this campaign Bernie has received exactly zero negative scrutiny whereas Hillary has been hit every day of this campaign with razzing-that has nothing to do with issues: emailgate, Biden talk, and razzing her about Bernie momentum.
So he has gotten a cakewalk so far. It will be interesting to see how he does in a debate format where he can't totally dictate the conversation.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/should-hillary-go-on-attack-against.html
No comments:
Post a Comment