How the Media Manufactured Hatred of Hillary Clinton

[Cattledog]

"The fact is that Hillary Clinton wasn’t unpopular when she announced her decision to run in April 2015. If you look at the Gallup survey in March of last year, 50 percent of Americans had a favorable impression of Clinton, only 39 percent an unfavorable one. So there was clearly no deep reservoir of Clinton hatred among the general public at the time. On the contrary: Americans liked her; they liked her quite a bit.

Already by June, however, her favorability had not only taken a hit. It had plummeted. By July, according to Gallup, her favorability hit an all-time low with only 38 percent positively and 57 percent viewing her negatively — putting her 19 points underwater."




http://billmoyers.com/story/last-night-3/

[yallerdawg]

1. How, indeed.

But policy wasn’t what the media were focused on that July. They were focused on emails. There was a court-mandated dump of Clinton’s emails late that month, and the media leapt on it with alacrity. This certainly wasn’t the first time the public had heard about Clinton using a private email server while Secretary of State. That news had come out in March 2015 and hadn’t affected her favorability at all. But the fixation on emails, which had long been an addiction among Republicans and the right-wing media, suddenly became an addiction in the mainstream media as well. According to a Lexis-Nexis search, The New York Times, to cite one example, had seven stories that month with “Clinton” and “emails” in the headline. More important, most news sources reported erroneously that Clinton was the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI. In reporting a sudden drop in Clinton’s popularity in its own NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that month, NBC professed not to understand why, though it had only to look at its own reporting. You could say that Clinton was sabotaged.

And that wasn’t all. As reported in a study by Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on media coverage in the pre-primary period, Clinton received especially negative coverage — overwhelmingly negative. At the same time, both Sanders and Trump received extremely positive coverage. As the report put it: “Whereas media coverage helped build up Trump, it helped tear down Clinton. Trump’s positive coverage was the equivalent of millions of dollars in ad-buys in his favor, whereas Clinton’s negative coverage can be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the receiving end.” And Shorenstein found there was a ratio of 45 negative stories to one positive story on the emails, much of them generated by Republicans and Fox News and picked up by mainstream media, who readily quoted the Republicans. Eighty-four percent of Clinton’s coverage in this period was negative in tone. Moreover, her coverage in the primary period, as studied by Shorenstein, continued to be disproportionately focused on emails and continued to be heavily negative — 10 negative stories for every positive one.

The transition from the story of the emails to the story of unpopularity itself followed as night does day and rapidly gained a momentum all its own, to the point where it is now quite possibly the central narrative of the election...

[gratuitous]

4. It was the Dean Scream all over again

The relentless negative coverage was unbelievable. By the time June rolls around next year, if you ask 100 Trump voters just what it was about Secretary Clinton they hated so much, I'm guessing their answer will be something, something Obamacare or Benghazi. If you follow up and ask specifically what about Obamacare or Benghazi was so heinous, you'll get a very blank stare.

[sarah FAILIN]

13. no..

They said that she killed all those men in Benghazi and that she was a baby killer wanting to allow women to start getting abortions the day before their babies are born. One woman literally did not believe that late term abortions were already legal. I could not reason with them. It was like talking to children about the income tax code.

[JI7]

2. i thought the media was bad with Gore. but they were the worst with clinton

Anything negative about trump just had to include something negative about her.

Even the debates were about his trump did well the first 15 seconds or some stupid shit like that.

[uponit7771]

3. GOP Spent 50 million on her to SPECIFICALLY lower her poll numbers

[Kuhl]

55. It was a billion dollar campaign..

Seems low frankly...

[uponit7771]

64. This was with the Bhengazi hearings

[ffr]

76. By any measure, no matter how much the GOP spent, it was an investment that'll pay off handsomely

for

them.

Raiders of the U.S. Treasury and America's natural resources.

We are so fcuked!!!

[Va Lefty]

5. Excellent read

the "liberal media" did the same thing to her they did to Gore in 2000.

[kimbutgar]

9. I had heard they were going to do this to her early this year.

I can't believe how they made a great stateswoman so toxic. Expect this going forward for any Democratic candidates. President Obama might be the last democratic president in my lifetime at my age 60. Sadly.

[kentuck]

6. Trump's negatives were always high from Day One...

So they had to get Hillary's numbers down to where Trump's were so it would be a "fair" battle. Yes, every day, the media would talk about how much people disliked Hillary and how 56% could not trust her. They accomplished their goal.

[Fast Walker 52]

10. rightwing narratives always rule the day in media-land

[kentuck]

44. That is something all Democrats need to understand.

Republicans always believe it is the "liberal media", but it's not.

Always skeptical of Democratic ideas but accepts "right-wing narratives" as the norm.

[LAS14]

7. k & r - Moyers is always impressive.

[Fast Walker 52]

8. Rigged.

It was fucking rigged for Rump.

[Initech]

46. It wasn't rigged. We won. They stole it.

They stole it through an act of treason that involved Russian hacking, and FBI director and Senate Majority Leader who hated Hillary Clinton and aided and abetted this act of treason. They must be punished and prosecuted for this.

[Fast Walker 52]

60. all that, but the media rigged it for Trump with the way they treated him vs HRC

[mathematic]

11. And they couldn't name one actual instance of hillary's wall street corruption

All they had to do was suggest she was in the pocket of various business lobbies.

Too bad nobody had the spine to directly ask these liars point blank to come up with an example.

[SunSeeker]

21. Well, Hillary asked Bernie to answer that question at one of the primary debates.

Of course, he could not answer it, he just repeated getting money from Wall Street will affect her.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/04/14/debate-bernie-sanders-no-example-donations-affecting-hillary-clintons/amp

So it wasn’t just the media that tanked her likeability, Sanders had a big hand in it:

[kcr]

49. I will never forgive him for that n/t

[SunSeeker]

50. Me neither. nt

[Kuhl]

56. It was a contest he was trying to win...

[uponit7771]

65. ... the most fucked up way possible? really?! That's a positive thing?

[Kuhl]

73. I feel he was restrained...

Like when he gave her a pass on emails at the debate.

He certainly didn't go as hard as he could have.

[SunSeeker]

74. He ran ads against her with cartoon money bags implying she was bought.

He did go as hard as he could have. And I am one of those who believe that line about "I'm so sick of hearing about the damn emails" line didn't come off quite like Bernie intended it to. I don’t think he meant to take that argument off the table against Hillary, but the way Hillary and the audience reacted, it kinda forced his hand.

He certainly kept harping on another non-issue, the "Wall Street transcipts," yet he himself never produced but one truncated tax return.

Meanwhile, Hillary ran no negative ads against Bernie that I saw. And there was a ton of negative stuff on Bernie she could have brought out. She just didn't bring it up. She just talked about the issues, like his votes against the Brady Bill.

[Kuhl]

84. How else could he possibly have meant it?

I'm genuinely curious...

[SunSeeker]

85. He was NOT suggesting the emails were a bullshit issue (which it was). Quite the opposite.

I think he meant exactly what he said, that he was sick of hearing about it. He later confirmed that he thought Hillary's emails were a "very serious issue," and worse, that "there was a legal process taking place." And then in the same breath, had the gall to say he was not politicizing it and that “I am not going to attack Hillary Clinton,” “The American people will have to make that judgment.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-emails_us_56ae254be4b077d4fe8e7023
Thus he legitimized the GOP talking points on the Clinton emails that Hillary broke the law by having a private server and that there was a criminal investigation of Hillary taking place because of it, neither of which were true.

I believe he was trying to say at that debate what many of his supporters said, that her emails and other "scandals" were Clinton baggage that they were sick of, and was one of the reasons they did not support Hillary. I think that Bernie started to say that, but only got out the "sick of" part before he was cut off by the audience applause and Hillary saying "I agree" and shaking his hand. He knew he would have been a heel at that point to finish his thought and say "but the emails are a very serious issue." He did finish his thought later, as that Huffpo link shows.

[Kuhl]

86. That only makes sense if you think Sanders is a moron...

[SunSeeker]

87. Then why do you think he later legitimized the email faux scandal to Jake Tapper? nt

[OnionPatch]

79. It was a political contest. They are going to criticize each other.

What about Hillary's attacks on Bernie? If had had won the nomination but lost the general, would it be Hillary's fault?

We can't have a democracy without debate. The idea that Bernie shouldn't have criticized Hillary during the primaries is absurd.

[JHan]

71. Bertha Lewis was on point there.

[killbotfactory]

37. Most people assume that when corporations give or pay you millions of dollars...

they expect something in return. Corporations typically aren't philanthropists unless there is something for them to gain from it.

That what Clinton and the Clinton foundation did wasn't anything out of the ordinary or egregious doesn't really help much.

[loyalsister]

57. Any sensible politician or political consultant knew big banks wall st. corruption

since about, 2008. She gave speeches to them and was secretive about content, anyway. Unforced error that opened her up to be smeared as corrupt from the beginning. Right about the people became more aware of Clinton wealth, she talked about being dead broke upon leaving the WH, and the aligned herself with what many people see as corruption. Then came the discovery of more secretive actions.

She made it easy for them.

[GP6971]

15. What's your opinion?

Welcome to DU!

[GP6971]

20. Properly Vet?

She's the former first lady or Arkansas, the US, US Senator and US Sec of State. that's not being vetted?

[DawgHouse]

16. You're right. It was the risotto.

[SunSeeker]

23. What in the emails made her "look bad"?!

Most people have no idea what was in those emails.

[aggiesal]

30. Wow, your second post and ...

You're saying the contents of Hillary's email made her look bad, and
that she wasn't vetted?

You're not going to last long here.

[SunSeeker]

47. Yup. Already gone. Some trolls don't even make an effort. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

14. Hillary's favorability was already in freefall at that point.

The more people thought she might run for office again, the worse her numbers got.





The truth is that she was always a terrible choice as a nominee and anyone on this site during the primaries saw thousands of posts spelling that out very clearly. Why reality was rejected for the pipe dream of an electable Hillary I will never know.

[JHan]

19. Well the base supported her.

Your best bet is to brow beat the millions who chose her in the primaries over her opponent.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. My point being that the OP is false.

The media was actually helping Hillary, not hurting her.

Pointing out that people made a bad choice is not brow beating. It is constructive criticism with the hopes that the mistake will not be repeated.

P.S. $64.3 million was donated to Hillary and her Super PACs by big banks. Saying that it was the base that supported her seems misleading.

[JHan]

26. I switched support from Sanders and O'Malley to Clinton..

I am happy with that. You, I assume, supported Sanders - and that's fine.

I think Hillary would have made a marvelous president and she was a decent candidate facing the most trying odds of any candidate in a presidential election in an incumbent year.

Also , Hillary has consistently gotten negative coverage over the years. She was dragged to the level of the Trump so badly, she was viewed as "lesser of two evils" - an unfair characterization. She was vastly superior to Trump by every metric.

If your bone of contention is that some big banks donated to her campaign, that is nothing new - big donors have existed in our party for decades.

[Motown_Johnny]

33. The most trying odds of any candidate in a presidential election in an incumbent year?!?!?!?!?

Care to back up that statement?



My bone of contention is that Hillary was supported by big money and political insiders far more than the base. Your statement about the base supporting her seems to be in error.

Hillary did not get negative coverage. Only her hero worshiping devotees think so.

Remember that big story about her flip flop on ethanol subsidies? You know... Seventeen votes in the Senate one way then switching positions in Iowa during the primary.

Remember that one? Neither does anyone else.. because it was never covered.

How about her evolution on marriage equality? She called marriage a "Sacred" bond between a man and a woman, then evolved on that stance after polls had marriage equality approval well above 50%.

Guess what. Sacred is the correct word when referring to the Sacrament of Marriage but it has no place in a discussion about civil marriage. The media just let her slide on that one. No need to explain that flip.

Yes, there were some negative stories about her because she was a terrible candidate. Over all, the media went easy on her.

She wasn't dragged down to Trump's level. When the entire country's positions are taken into account, she was already there. Yes, I voted for her because she would have been the lesser of two evils, and yes it is a fair comparison.

If you look at her record, she has gotten a lot of things wrong the first time and then taken way too long to figure out she was wrong. It is very possible she would have been a terrible President. We will never know.

P.S. Sorry if this breaks the "Hillary Is Perfect" Rule (thinly disguised as the "No Bashing Democrats" Rule) but the discussion turned into a debate about Hillary as a nominee. I see no other way to address this other than to point out her weak points. Hide it if you must, but the truth will still exist, even if this post doesn't.

[JHan]

38. This is really why we can't have nice things:

You know it's really interesting this: I accepted that you supported Sanders, without taking you for task for it - because it is water under the bridge and I do not care but of course you have to take me to task for my support of Hillary. So here we go *SIGH*

"My bone of contention is that Hillary was supported by big money and political insiders far more than the base. Your statement about the base supporting her seems to be in error. " -

The numbers don't lie- she won the popular vote and Sanders remained competitive because of caucuses.

"Remember that big story about her flip flop on ethanol subsidies? You know... Seventeen votes in the Senate one way then switching positions in Iowa during the primary.

Remember that one? Neither does anyone else.. because it was never covered.

How about her evolution on marriage equality? She called marriage a "Sacred" bond between a man and a woman, then evolved on that stance after polls had marriage equality approval well above 50%. "

Stick a pin in it about politicians shifting their views on issues. No really. Stop. And Obama flipflopped as much as Clinton on gay marriage. This is from however long ago, how far are you going to go to hunt for inconsistencies in a politician's stance on issues?

And spare me the diatribe about ethanol subsidies - which are far from simplistic.

And no, I do not think Hillary is perfect

[SunSeeker]

25. She was at 50 % favorability in early 2015. That is not freefall.

If you look at when that line took a sharp tick downward, it was when the email story came out and Sanders entered the race (April 2015) and started bashing her.

[Motown_Johnny]

27. down 9% from the previous year and a total of 14% from 2 years earlier

Yes, already in free fall.

Her continued decline was simply an extension of the pattern

[SunSeeker]

29. Down only 9% during a year long fever pitch Benghazi investgation is not freefall. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

35. Benghazi was bullshit and anyone not a bat shit crazy (R) knew it.

I don't think that really hurt her much.


Having the FBI investigate her was different. That hurt.

Was the media supposed to ignore that???

[SunSeeker]

42. The FBI was not investigating her. You swallowed the biased reporting.

Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2016, 04:09 AM - Edit history (1)

[uponit7771]

67. +1

[uponit7771]

66. This is false on its face, we already know their aren't a lot of politicos and should know DU isn't

... normal

[LanternWaste]

69. Your bias certainly forces you to choose language creatively, regardless of its accuracy.

Your bias certainly forces you to choose language creatively, regardless of its accuracy.

[JHan]

28. Zactly, I saw a poll where she was at around 58% shortly before announcing her run.

[Motown_Johnny]

36. Link? n/t

[JHan]

39. This is from Pew Research :

Seems she was at 58% Aug of 2014 when there were rumors she would run, and when she officially announced her run she was hovering around 50%

http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/

Afterwards, the republicans intensified their Benghazi BS.

[DanTex]

72. It wasn't "in freefall", it was just down from her numbers as SoS, closer to 2008.

Which is entirely expected: approval numbers drop when people run for office, and also the GOP had already been attacking her in anticipation of her run.

What really turned her numbers down were the media and a dishonest negative campaign from Bernie Sanders.

[NBachers]

18. I read the first couple of paragraphs. I can't read more. I'm already dejected enough.

I already know what happened. I already know how it happened. My physical, mental, and emotional health are already at too low a point to have it thrown at me in detail like this. I'm living the nightmare every day, and still trying to make my life go.

[LAS14]

22. I wish we'd seen more articles like this last January and February.

[Hoyt]

31. I supported Clinton 100%, but the media didn't have to do a thing

to manufacture Clinton hatred. There was plenty of it one white wingers and even right here. We blame the media sometimes when the culprits are others.

[still_one]

53. While you are correct about the right wing hatred of Clinton, the media was NOT an innocent

bystander "just reporting the facts, you decide". They actively fostered and exploited it.

I cannot tell you how many times the talking heads would characterize Hillary as "shrill, angry, and never smiles"

The interview with Matt Lauer was a perfect example of the media's double standard:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/politics/matt-lauer-forum.html

There are a lot of examples like that, but perhaps the most fatal one was when MSNBC was the first network to report that the "FBI had reopened the email investigation". That was NOT a true statement. Immediately after MSNBC reported that, they then paraded every right wing politician across the television screen, propagating that LIE. Within in an hour CNN and other outlets were reporting the same falsehood.

A few days later, Bret Baier from fox news reported that, "according to his sources in the FBI, an indictment was pending against the Clinton Foundation". That was a LIE, and it was picked up by other news outlets. Two days later, Bret Baier apologized saying his information was incorrect, and he should not had reported that, but the damage was done. In fact, fox news continued to repeat that lie, along with the trump campaign.

There are so many examples of the media being a willing partner in exploiting the Clinton hate, but it even went beyond that. The media conveyed the normalization of that hate, along with racism and anti-Semitism.

One of the most outrageous was when CNN debated for a few minutes the question, "are Jews really human?":

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/21/cnn-reaches-debating-trump-admit-jews-people.html

The media did NOT treat the candidates by the same standards. A Harvard study confirmed that:

https://www.good.is/articles/hillary-clinton-negative-press

The Bill Moyers article goes into depth about this:

http://billmoyers.com/story/last-night-3/

[guillaumeb]

32. If the corporate media had devoted as much time to Trump's actual history in business.....

We cannot know at this time what would have happened, but the emails and the "untrustworthy" and "crooked" memes received massive coverage and were inserted into nearly every story.

[milestogo]

34. Raw unbridled sexism.

[oasis]

40. MSM played a large role in robbing America of an exceptional president.

Joe and Mika top the list.

[Fast Walker 52]

61. they sure fucking did... plus a lot of lefty media outlets were only too happy to join in on

bashing Hillary-- how many critical articles did we see in Salon, Truthdig, Consortium News, Common Dreams, etc where her record was smeared endlessly.

[Cha]

41. The m$media****** got dumphuck selected.

How the Media Manufactured Hatred of Hillary Clinton

"The fact is that Hillary Clinton wasn’t unpopular when she announced her decision to run in April 2015. If you look at the Gallup survey in March of last year, 50 percent of Americans had a favorable impression of Clinton, only 39 percent an unfavorable one. So there was clearly no deep reservoir of Clinton hatred among the general public at the time. On the contrary: Americans liked her; they liked her quite a bit.

Already by June, however, her favorability had not only taken a hit. It had plummeted. By July, according to Gallup, her favorability hit an all-time low with only 38 percent positively and 57 percent viewing her negatively — putting her 19 points underwater."

http://billmoyers.com/story/last-night-3/

Thank you, Cattledog

[StevieM]

43. I like that this article talked about Hillary's consistent efforts to discuss economic issues.

It was written before the election. In other words, before the media decided to settle on a ridiculous version of events where HRC lost because she didn't have an economic message or try to focus on pocket book issues.

[Cha]

48. Yes! thank you, Stevie!

[Lil Missy]

45. It worked on DU, that's for sure.

[baldguy]

58. Still working, seeing some of the replies here.

[betsuni]

52. K&R

[Kuhl]

54. She'd been out of the lime light for a while preparing...

It's reasonable to expect change one way or another once folks starting seeing her and thinking about her as a possible President.

Significant change itself is not indicative of shenanigans.

[MountCleaners]

59. Please, it was sexist witch-burning

...and I'm a leftist Democrat, was never a huge fan of her. However, I never understood what was so TERRIBLE about her, either. I never found her unpersonable. Just seemed like her detractors were imagining things.

[uponit7771]

68. +1

[otohara]

62. The Lefty Media Tore Her Apart

Salon, AlterNet, commondreams, and the other usual suspects were feeding the liberal Hillary haters daily even after the primary ended. When they finally started to panic and post a few positive articles the comments were brutal.

[MineralMan]

63. It wasn't just the media.

Not by a long shot. I read DU daily. I read other websites, too. It wasn't just the media. Truly.

[inwiththenew]

70. She made some questionable decisions from a political standpoint between 08-16

By setting up that email server and the paid speeches. Note I said political and not legal.

She had to know that she was going to run again and being a veteran of the process she had to know that an opponent could make hay out of the these issues.

I think she must have made the calculation that these would be a non-issue or could be easily explained away. I think the email server especially really eroded the opinion of her. It could be argued that the media would have come up with something else but they didn't have to.

We know that the emails contained nothing from a legal/ethical standpoint but politically they were killer.

[oasis]

75. Emails..emails You don't seem to believe the issue was way overblown.

Oh well.

[ismnotwasm]

77. More analysis that goes in the "no shit" file

Although I do appreciate the article

[mulsh]

78. "deeply flawed" "most disliked candidate", phrases every TV story employed, Rachael Maddow & Chis

Hayes deserve kudos for including these notions consistently in their coverage. Usually after devoting their first 20 minutes to Trump or as I eventually thought of it: gratis Trump PR.

But really every single story I read about Hillary Clinton in every source seemed to require some version of those damning phrases. Why it is as if they were essential instructions in the 2016 political style books for all "news" outlets.

Of course those phrases are icing on the cake of nearly 40 years of covering Clinton in as negative a manner as journalist's juvenile minds could concoct.

[bowens43]

80. the hatred is real.....it's been there for decades.

How could so many not have seen it? How did so many miss the hatred from the right toward her over the years? The right didn't even scratch the surface of the scandals real and manufactured that they could have thrown at her.

[spanone]

81. benghazi....james comey....russian hack....that's how they won.

[azmom]

82. In campaigning against Obama in 08 there was already

talk of her not being likeable. Remember the "you're likeable enough" line Obama used.

It seemed to be an issue for her back then too.

[fescuerescue]

83. Hillary is well loved

Not hated.