This what Mark Halperin himself admitted after the 2008 election.
"Having created the ballyhooed Whitewater “scandal,” most of the nation’s news organizations, including three or four television networks and the two most important daily newspapers, cheered Starr on, spending millions more in their own zeal to get Hillary. There was no accusation too obscure or dubious to make headlines, in publications that routinely anticipated her imminent criminal indictment. Editors of The New York Times, America’s newspaper of record, employed not one but two op-ed columnists, William Safire and Maureen Dowd, whose only seeming purpose in life was to bring her down. Safire warned repeatedly that she would go to prison, promising to “eat crow” if his direst predictions proved wrong. (While the old Nixon hand has since passed away, Dowd still pursues the same old obsession in the same space, as she devolves into self-parody.) When she ran for the United States Senate in 2000, the ugliness only intensified, with Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post publishing false accusations of anti-Semitism against Hillary, articulated by a pair of Arkansas con artists and that ultimate hustler, Dick Morris. What Morris said had as little credibility as any of his statements— he had published a book only two years earlier, declaring that he would never forget Hillary’s kindness to his elderly Jewish parents, with no mention of any alleged anti-Semitic remarks by her. But as with any “Clinton scandal,” credibility and facts mattered little. Eight years later, campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton waded through a barrage of biased, sexist media coverage that left even the most jaded political journalists shaking their heads. In the aftermath, Mark Halperin, the peripatetic Time magazine, ABC News and now Bloomberg News pundit—who has showed little sympathy toward her over the years—offered a confession on behalf of his profession. Admitting that the ordinary flaws in campaign coverage, “wild swings, accentuating the negative—are magnified 50 times when it comes to her,” Halperin said, “It’s not a level playing field.” Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank agreed that the political press “will savage her no matter what, pretty much. There’s no question they have their knives out for her.”
https://user-assets-unbounce-com.s3.amazonaws.com/ce338798-70f0-11e4-aecd-22000a91c258/2d43ae19-ffa8-4de6-8487-628229991890/huntingofhillary-pdf-01-06-16.original.pdf?x-amz-security-
Certainly Milbank speaks from experience with some of the nasty sexist pranks he himself participated in back in 2008.
With all the talk of how bad her favorables are, the media is too modest. They have done a lot to create this themselves. What they don't admit is that, after all, favorability is not static and this is a very partisan age.
In 2013 and 2014, President Obama's favorability was upside down with him mostly in the low 40s and occasionally in the high 30s. Basically where Hillary is now. According to the Huffington Pollster averages she's at 40 percent approval with 55 percent disapproval.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
When she was Secretary of State, her numbers were excellent-64 percent approval, just 32 percent disapproving. What's changed? She's a partisan, political figure again.
In some ways her and the President have switched roles. Everyone thought he was beaten after the dismal results for the Dems in 2014. Turns out it was the opposite. No longer having to face another election unleashed him.
Add to a very partisan environment, the fact that the media has had its knives out for her. They hit her for six straight months all day every day over the emails-never admitting that Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice also used private email when SOS.
Currently the media continues to insist on claiming that Hillary has been 'unable to put Bernie away' even though she put him away two months ago.
The media claims that Hillary is so hated and there is so little enthusiasm for her that the country may just elect a white nationalist candidate who wants to ban Muslims, deport 11 million people, prosecute journalists who criticize him, and who admires Putin, Kim Jong-un, and the Tinanmen Square Massacre.
And who keeps a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed, locked in a file cabinet for safekeeping.
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8
But for many Hillary haters, this would be preferable for that woman finally winning.
Some would give better coverage to Hitler himself than she, let along a want to be Hitler like Donald Trump.
"Having created the ballyhooed Whitewater “scandal,” most of the nation’s news organizations, including three or four television networks and the two most important daily newspapers, cheered Starr on, spending millions more in their own zeal to get Hillary. There was no accusation too obscure or dubious to make headlines, in publications that routinely anticipated her imminent criminal indictment. Editors of The New York Times, America’s newspaper of record, employed not one but two op-ed columnists, William Safire and Maureen Dowd, whose only seeming purpose in life was to bring her down. Safire warned repeatedly that she would go to prison, promising to “eat crow” if his direst predictions proved wrong. (While the old Nixon hand has since passed away, Dowd still pursues the same old obsession in the same space, as she devolves into self-parody.) When she ran for the United States Senate in 2000, the ugliness only intensified, with Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post publishing false accusations of anti-Semitism against Hillary, articulated by a pair of Arkansas con artists and that ultimate hustler, Dick Morris. What Morris said had as little credibility as any of his statements— he had published a book only two years earlier, declaring that he would never forget Hillary’s kindness to his elderly Jewish parents, with no mention of any alleged anti-Semitic remarks by her. But as with any “Clinton scandal,” credibility and facts mattered little. Eight years later, campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton waded through a barrage of biased, sexist media coverage that left even the most jaded political journalists shaking their heads. In the aftermath, Mark Halperin, the peripatetic Time magazine, ABC News and now Bloomberg News pundit—who has showed little sympathy toward her over the years—offered a confession on behalf of his profession. Admitting that the ordinary flaws in campaign coverage, “wild swings, accentuating the negative—are magnified 50 times when it comes to her,” Halperin said, “It’s not a level playing field.” Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank agreed that the political press “will savage her no matter what, pretty much. There’s no question they have their knives out for her.”
https://user-assets-unbounce-com.s3.amazonaws.com/ce338798-70f0-11e4-aecd-22000a91c258/2d43ae19-ffa8-4de6-8487-628229991890/huntingofhillary-pdf-01-06-16.original.pdf?x-amz-security-
Certainly Milbank speaks from experience with some of the nasty sexist pranks he himself participated in back in 2008.
With all the talk of how bad her favorables are, the media is too modest. They have done a lot to create this themselves. What they don't admit is that, after all, favorability is not static and this is a very partisan age.
In 2013 and 2014, President Obama's favorability was upside down with him mostly in the low 40s and occasionally in the high 30s. Basically where Hillary is now. According to the Huffington Pollster averages she's at 40 percent approval with 55 percent disapproval.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
When she was Secretary of State, her numbers were excellent-64 percent approval, just 32 percent disapproving. What's changed? She's a partisan, political figure again.
In some ways her and the President have switched roles. Everyone thought he was beaten after the dismal results for the Dems in 2014. Turns out it was the opposite. No longer having to face another election unleashed him.
Add to a very partisan environment, the fact that the media has had its knives out for her. They hit her for six straight months all day every day over the emails-never admitting that Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice also used private email when SOS.
Currently the media continues to insist on claiming that Hillary has been 'unable to put Bernie away' even though she put him away two months ago.
The media claims that Hillary is so hated and there is so little enthusiasm for her that the country may just elect a white nationalist candidate who wants to ban Muslims, deport 11 million people, prosecute journalists who criticize him, and who admires Putin, Kim Jong-un, and the Tinanmen Square Massacre.
And who keeps a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed, locked in a file cabinet for safekeeping.
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8
But for many Hillary haters, this would be preferable for that woman finally winning.
Some would give better coverage to Hitler himself than she, let along a want to be Hitler like Donald Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment