The Press - "They’re already trying to erase what they did to Hillary Clinton" by Melissa McEwan

[misterhighwasted]

http://shareblue.com/theyre-already-trying-to-erase-what-they-did-to-hillary-clinton/



They’re already trying to erase what they did to Hillary Clinton

By Melissa McEwan |
OCTOBER 25, 2016

Some members of the press are beginning to reflect on their coverage of this presidential election and are finding it wanting.
But they are only telling half the story. The easy half.

Dana Milbank takes the media — or certain members of the media, anyway — to task for being “lap dogs” who failed to “bark at Trump.” The watchdogs, he says, “were outnumbered in this election by those who cover politics as horse race.”

Milbank makes a strong case for the dereliction of duty committed by large swaths of the national press, who focused on optics and process instead of policy — and did so under the auspices of “objectivity” while “irresponsibly [giving] Trump unfiltered and uncritical coverage as he mounted his assaults on democracy and civility.”

But what Milbank gets wrong — and what most pre- and post-mortems of media coverage will get wrong, too — is that uncritical and/or disproportionate Trump coverage is only half the story. The easy half.
The other half is the highly aggressive, sustained, and gender-biased coverage of Hillary Clinton.


SNIP
No man in her position, including her contemptible opponent, has been subjected to anything like the level of harassment and dehumanization masquerading as political coverage that Clinton has been.

And no voters have been so routinely and thoroughly ignored as her supporters, in service to a demeaning narrative about “low enthusiasm” for her candidacy.


SNIP
It is not merely that much of the corporate media went easy on Trump and his supporters; it is also that much of the corporate media went hard on Clinton and hers.

The colossal imbalance of the coverage of the candidates in this election is absolutely worth exploring, especially by members of the media who facilitated that imbalance.

But the exploration will be worth nothing at all if it excludes accountability for the dreadful coverage of Clinton.

MORE AT LINK
A Great " Must Read" by Melissa McEwan

[bulloney]

1. When the head of CBS admits they gave Trump extensive coverage because of entertainment value

instead of substance, he was expressing a gross disservice to this country. The news media have a degree of responsibility of holding political candidates and leaders accountable instead of looking at everything as a potential money-making freak show, which the Trump campaign has been. Trump has spent a huge amount of his campaign dishing out juvenile attacks on political opponents and anyone else who has not fawned over him. The media made Trump much more viable and credible than he had any business of being as a POTUS candidate.

[tonyt53]

2. For far too long newscasters were allowed to run the show. Now real journalists are running it.

Big difference between a newscaster and a real journalist. Really big difference.

[unblock]

3. The "low enthusiasm" narrative for the likely first woman president is particularly galling

Seriously? Can't find any stories about women and girls excited to see a woman in the Oval Office? Can't find any republican woman who will vote for her because she's a woman? Can't find any older first-time voters drawn out of their apathy because she's a woman?

No, it's all just, you know, "first woman president. Whatever. Nothing to see here."

[lindysalsagal]

4. ...For 5 minutes, until they go back to bashing her

Sorry. Not buying that "the press" has a consciense. The press is a business that runs on ratings and trash.

[Bill USA]

5. great article. I call M$M (esp tv: ABC, NBC, CBC, PBS) GOP- TV. They play by the script laid out by

GOP Obergruppenführers. Avoid embarassing the GOP, always hit Hillary hard on the GOP anti-Hillary talking points.

The most egregious example of this is when Comey was questioned by the Congressional Committee. NOWHERE on M$M could you find the questioning of Comey by Rep Matt Cartwright about the lack of a Classified Header on any of the emails purported to contain classified information. Comey had to admit that NOT ONE of the emails in question had a Classified Header - as is required IF the document contains classified info.

I never saw it reported anywhere on M$M that all the instances of Classified information, as determined by the intelligence community (basically, the CIA) - nowhere did I see it pointed out that the State Dept DID NOT agree that the information was Classified. Nowhere have I seen it reported to the public what anybody who has worked for the Government knows - that various agencies do NOT always agree on what should be classified and what does not need to be Classified.

Clinton's email "scandal" that isn't. Brief notes for 'discussions' with Repugnants

[BlancheSplanchnik]

7. rage...building....must....not...

throw the radiator out the window....

[senseandsensibility]

6. Sexism is the new four letter word

practiced enthusiastically by "our" media but never to be mentioned.

[mulsh]

8. Hey, she forgot to include "most disliked candidate" and "flawed" in her descriptions of

Clinton. I thought those terms were required in all print and video assessments of Hillary Clinton. Is the author trying to tell us that the media's coverage of Clinton has been woefully and dishonestly biased? Do you think she may have a point?

Maybe she'll include how much people "don't trust" Hillary in a follow up article.

[misterhighwasted]

9. McEwan makes the subtle point that Clinton's supporters were also

ignored, in their rush to demonize Hillary.
They ignored the fact that she had millions of voters who supported this candidate.
The media refused to give credence to them. Like these people didn't exist in the 2016 election.
What they did to Clinton, the media also did to her enormous & loyal base.

Great point Ms McEwan. Thank you.


You're post says exactly what the media has been doing all along.
It was sick.