4 ms·
I believe the point is media not digging into Wikileaks' papers. You can compare it when Wikileaks showed Bush's faults -- the media was after it right away. I
by angry-hacker 10y ago
I believe the point is media not digging into Wikileaks' papers. You can compare it when Wikileaks showed Bush's faults -- the media was after it right away.
It doesn't take a lot to understand Hillary is corrupted. Watching CNN from over the ocean here it's almost a joke. They only talk about Trump's sex allegations that are not even at the court yet. At the same time you can read from Wikileaks about shady things Hillary is doing, but the breaking news is a pornstar accuses Trump, Trump said that, Trump did a funny face.
- raesene6 10y agoyou must watch different media to me. Today is wall-to-wall Clinton E-mail stuff and little about Trump apart from him talking about Clinton's e-mail. The media go with what they think will get the most views/clicks/sales, that tends to be the most outrageous thing they can find. Trump says many outrageous things, ergo he gets more coverage.
- angry-hacker 10y agoToday yes since it's breaking everywhere. During the Wikileaks -- no. Despite it would be a hit to write whatever you find from the documents.
- MrZongle2 10y ago"I believe the point is media not digging into Wikileaks' papers. You can compare it when Wikileaks showed Bush's faults -- the media was after it right away." If nothing else, a Trump presidency would mean the return of investigative journalism on the national level. The "Fourth Estate" has become terribly out of shape in that regard.