Yesterday we looked at a study that confirmed what Hillary fans like us have long known. Hillary has gotten the worse coverage of anyone who ran in 2016. Her coverage is so bad it's worse than that of Donald Trump-who is a racist authoritarian totally unqualified for the job trying to become the American Caesar after years 228 years of being a Republic.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/08/yes-donald-trump-receives-more.html
Despite the existential threat of Trump the media has still found more time to quibble about silly non scandals like emails, pressers, and demonized a fine philanthropic organization like the Clinton Foundation. With the important work the CF does worldwide, that's particularly despicable by the media.
We have Hitler 2.0 running for President and the media still manages to give Hillary worse treatment.
Yesterday on Face the Nation we again saw this crystallized by the numbers 27 to 0 and 3 to 1.
27 was the number of times her emails got mentioned on John Dickerson's Face the Nation and 0 is the time his tax returns were.
"number of times "emails" mentioned on @FaceTheNation today? 27."
"number of times Trump's tax returns were mentioned? 0"
https://twitter.com/EricBoehlert/status/769989499006976001
Dickerson demanded to know 'Why isn't she winning by more?' Sure she has to win by 50 points. If she wins by 49 points she's not legitimate.
The other relevant numbers were 3 to 1: The number of Trump surrogates to the number of Hillary surrogates, though I agree Donna Brazile alone had them all beat.
https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/status/769947850230886400
"In other words, would it surprise me if the media held the Clintons to a different standard?"
https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/status/770000342922723332
Brazile on the nasty attempt to slander the Clinton Foundation:
"Brazile on Clinton Foundation: 'I don’t see what the smoke is'
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/brazile-clinton-foundation-227479#ixzz4IiOshdlQ
True. That AP story not only had no fire but when you looked at the story-rather than the AP's misleading tweet-there was not even any smoke. The woman who runs AP seemed not to get why having a misleading tweet is a problem yesterday when she was on Brian Stelter's Reliable Sources.
"AP's Kathleen Carroll defends Clinton investigation but admits 'sloppy' tweet http://cnnmon.ie/2bJay4b
https://twitter.com/CNNMoney/status/770109976601825280
She admits it's sloppy but won't take it down because-best I can tell, she believes in an AP version of Papal Infallibility.
Once the AP tweets it can never change the tweet, even if it wants to.
Back to Brazile:
"Donna Brazile, interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, on Sunday said recently released emails showing government access for donors to the Clinton Foundation don't indicate any wrongdoing."
"This notion that, somehow or another, someone who is a supporter, someone who is a donor, somebody who's an activist, saying I want access, I want to come into a room and I want to meet people, we often criminalize behavior that is normal," she said in an interview with Martha Raddatz on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "I don’t see what the smoke is."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/brazile-clinton-foundation-227479#ixzz4IiQEKsDb
By the way, correlation is not causation; except for with the Clintons of course. The fact that someone was a donor and met with Hilary at the State does not prove she wouldn't have met with them if they hadn't donated. As Brazile says, access is not a crime.
Next you'll hear, it doesn't matter if it''s not a crime, it's 'bad optics.' Of course, what I noticed in talking to a lot of Hillary haters on Twitter who are obsessed with the CF, is that they easily confound different things. They confound a campaign donor and a Clinton Foundation donor which is just about charity, full stop.
Brazile said she supports the work of the Clinton Foundation and that the organization has been transparent, law-abiding and careful to avoid conflicts of interest.
Asked about dueling charges of racism between the campaigns, Brazile said Hillary Clinton didn't call Donald Trump's supporters racist but said he should do more to disavow supporters who are.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/brazile-clinton-foundation-227479#ixzz4IiSm24rv
Again, Josh Marshall's point is vindicated. You can never go broke underestimating the media. In its mind there are 'Dueling charges of racism' which for the press is impossible to distinguish.
Trump has a record of saying extremely racist things-and long record of discriminating against people of color. Hillary has a long history of public service and anti racist work going back to the Children Defense Fund.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/08/yes-donald-trump-receives-more.html
Despite the existential threat of Trump the media has still found more time to quibble about silly non scandals like emails, pressers, and demonized a fine philanthropic organization like the Clinton Foundation. With the important work the CF does worldwide, that's particularly despicable by the media.
We have Hitler 2.0 running for President and the media still manages to give Hillary worse treatment.
Yesterday on Face the Nation we again saw this crystallized by the numbers 27 to 0 and 3 to 1.
27 was the number of times her emails got mentioned on John Dickerson's Face the Nation and 0 is the time his tax returns were.
"number of times "emails" mentioned on @FaceTheNation today? 27."
"number of times Trump's tax returns were mentioned? 0"
https://twitter.com/EricBoehlert/status/769989499006976001
Dickerson demanded to know 'Why isn't she winning by more?' Sure she has to win by 50 points. If she wins by 49 points she's not legitimate.
The other relevant numbers were 3 to 1: The number of Trump surrogates to the number of Hillary surrogates, though I agree Donna Brazile alone had them all beat.
https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/status/769947850230886400
"In other words, would it surprise me if the media held the Clintons to a different standard?"
https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/status/770000342922723332
Brazile on the nasty attempt to slander the Clinton Foundation:
"Brazile on Clinton Foundation: 'I don’t see what the smoke is'
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/brazile-clinton-foundation-227479#ixzz4IiOshdlQ
True. That AP story not only had no fire but when you looked at the story-rather than the AP's misleading tweet-there was not even any smoke. The woman who runs AP seemed not to get why having a misleading tweet is a problem yesterday when she was on Brian Stelter's Reliable Sources.
"AP's Kathleen Carroll defends Clinton investigation but admits 'sloppy' tweet http://cnnmon.ie/2bJay4b
https://twitter.com/CNNMoney/status/770109976601825280
She admits it's sloppy but won't take it down because-best I can tell, she believes in an AP version of Papal Infallibility.
Once the AP tweets it can never change the tweet, even if it wants to.
Back to Brazile:
"Donna Brazile, interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, on Sunday said recently released emails showing government access for donors to the Clinton Foundation don't indicate any wrongdoing."
"This notion that, somehow or another, someone who is a supporter, someone who is a donor, somebody who's an activist, saying I want access, I want to come into a room and I want to meet people, we often criminalize behavior that is normal," she said in an interview with Martha Raddatz on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "I don’t see what the smoke is."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/brazile-clinton-foundation-227479#ixzz4IiQEKsDb
By the way, correlation is not causation; except for with the Clintons of course. The fact that someone was a donor and met with Hilary at the State does not prove she wouldn't have met with them if they hadn't donated. As Brazile says, access is not a crime.
Next you'll hear, it doesn't matter if it''s not a crime, it's 'bad optics.' Of course, what I noticed in talking to a lot of Hillary haters on Twitter who are obsessed with the CF, is that they easily confound different things. They confound a campaign donor and a Clinton Foundation donor which is just about charity, full stop.
Brazile said she supports the work of the Clinton Foundation and that the organization has been transparent, law-abiding and careful to avoid conflicts of interest.
Asked about dueling charges of racism between the campaigns, Brazile said Hillary Clinton didn't call Donald Trump's supporters racist but said he should do more to disavow supporters who are.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/brazile-clinton-foundation-227479#ixzz4IiSm24rv
Again, Josh Marshall's point is vindicated. You can never go broke underestimating the media. In its mind there are 'Dueling charges of racism' which for the press is impossible to distinguish.
Trump has a record of saying extremely racist things-and long record of discriminating against people of color. Hillary has a long history of public service and anti racist work going back to the Children Defense Fund.
But for the media, they can just record what both sides say. They can't scrutinize it in anyway. One candidate is poling at 0 while the other at 92 among African Americans.
But for the media it's 'Both sides call the other side a racist'-though only Trump actually did this-laughably enough.
For more on this, see Ed Kilgore.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/media-false-equivalence-over-racism-charges-helps-trump.html?mid=twitter_nymag
But for the media it's 'Both sides call the other side a racist'-though only Trump actually did this-laughably enough.
For more on this, see Ed Kilgore.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/media-false-equivalence-over-racism-charges-helps-trump.html?mid=twitter_nymag
No comments:
Post a Comment