4 ms·

Those very narrow allegations about one incident within the DNC are not the same as the entire corporate media colluding in Clinton's favor. I'm not happy about

Those very narrow allegations about one incident within the DNC are not the same as the entire corporate media colluding in Clinton's favor. I'm not happy about what the DNC did but it's not clear that swayed the outcome from an inevitable Bernie victory or that the DNC was part of a conspiracy with the media.

wavefunction 10y ago
The emails also showed that both the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC reached out to highly-placed journalists (Ezra Klein, some others) to prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz as GOP candidates because there was a consensus that they would be "pushovers." Donald Trump received an exorbitant amount of media coverage for free throughout the campaign cycle.
- ForrestN 10y ago
  I would love to see a source. I can't seem to find anything that reflects this. Campaigns reach out to journalists constantly, every day, to try and influence their thinking. That's called discourse, and I'd hate to imagine what campaigns would be like if reporters couldn't talk to campaign staff. All I can find doing a quick search about Klein is that he was seen as someone interested in holding other journalists accountable, which means... nothing? Of course people in campaigns are going to be working on identifying who to speak with about various subjects based on who they think might agree with them. Klein is the extremely well respected founder of vox.com and certainly did not "prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz" to my knowledge. If anything, vox.com was substantially less Trump-obsessed and criticized the broader media coverage of Trump. If there were a credible source about a media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton I'd be very grateful to see it. But I haven't seen it yet.
ABCLAW 10y ago
If you've performed investigatory work before, you'd know that having a specific incident memorialized in text is often only the visible iceberg of non-compliance. Most agents that are skirting the rules have some notion that they shouldn't be overtly recording their misdeeds. In other words, where there's smoke, there's often fire. The 'one incident' wasn't just smoke, though. It was a full blown conflict-of-interest fire in and of itself.
- ForrestN 10y ago
  Sure—and I'm not excusing Brazile or the DNC. But that wasn't the parent's point. Longtime establishment Democrat operatives acting on behalf of a longtime establishment Democrat against a non-Democrat who was constantly talking about his own disconnection from the Democratic establishment is something that I think is bad for the party and unethical. I don't really like the Democratic establishment very much. Having parties full of politicians operate things like debates from a supposedly neutral vantage is silly and shouldn't happen. What does that have to do with a corporate media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton over the obvious victor Bernie Sanders?
  - ABCLAW 10y ago
    I believe your points were already well addressed, but lets take another stab at this. A number of studies have indicated that media displayed substantial bias during the primaries. That bias was directly in line with Clinton's campaign strategy, as stated in another child to the parent comment. https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidentia... I'm not sure what else you're looking for. More on the causation front? Studies on the effects of media coverage on candidates in political races have thoroughly discussed here and elsewhere since the election. More on the media bias side? I'm sure you can review the DNC leak as well as other post-election frequency reviews. There's a reason why people were outraged at the media post-election and subsequently why the 'fake news' scapegoat was trotted out as a narrative to salvage the worth of mainstream media's reputation.
    - ForrestN 10y ago
      What? From the summary of your link: "Why was Clinton’s coverage substantially more negative than Sanders’, and why did Sanders get so much less coverage than she did?" Did I ever claim the media wasn't biased? Of course the media had an effect on the election, and that effect wasn't neutral. The fact that the media has systemic biases does not imply that major media organizations conspired in favor of a candidate, Hillary Clinton, who was actually considered by most to have been negatively impacted in the general election, and according to the link you posted, was covered more negatively than Bernie Sanders. This is a giant mess conflating DNC problems with fundamental realities of news media with an unproven conspiracy theory. I have always been responding to this: "the corporate media [...] colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity in Bernie Sanders to help their friend and collaborator Hillary Clinton, and so we ended up with Donald Trump." I promise you, that is not the position of the Shorenstein Center or any other academic research organization focused on journalism.

wavefunction 10y ago

The emails also showed that both the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC reached out to highly-placed journalists (Ezra Klein, some others) to prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz as GOP candidates because there was a consensus that they would be "pushovers." Donald Trump received an exorbitant amount of media coverage for free throughout the campaign cycle.

ForrestN 10y ago
I would love to see a source. I can't seem to find anything that reflects this. Campaigns reach out to journalists constantly, every day, to try and influence their thinking. That's called discourse, and I'd hate to imagine what campaigns would be like if reporters couldn't talk to campaign staff. All I can find doing a quick search about Klein is that he was seen as someone interested in holding other journalists accountable, which means... nothing? Of course people in campaigns are going to be working on identifying who to speak with about various subjects based on who they think might agree with them. Klein is the extremely well respected founder of vox.com and certainly did not "prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz" to my knowledge. If anything, vox.com was substantially less Trump-obsessed and criticized the broader media coverage of Trump. If there were a credible source about a media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton I'd be very grateful to see it. But I haven't seen it yet.

ABCLAW 10y ago

If you've performed investigatory work before, you'd know that having a specific incident memorialized in text is often only the visible iceberg of non-compliance. Most agents that are skirting the rules have some notion that they shouldn't be overtly recording their misdeeds. In other words, where there's smoke, there's often fire. The 'one incident' wasn't just smoke, though. It was a full blown conflict-of-interest fire in and of itself.

ForrestN 10y ago
Sure—and I'm not excusing Brazile or the DNC. But that wasn't the parent's point. Longtime establishment Democrat operatives acting on behalf of a longtime establishment Democrat against a non-Democrat who was constantly talking about his own disconnection from the Democratic establishment is something that I think is bad for the party and unethical. I don't really like the Democratic establishment very much. Having parties full of politicians operate things like debates from a supposedly neutral vantage is silly and shouldn't happen. What does that have to do with a corporate media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton over the obvious victor Bernie Sanders?
- ABCLAW 10y ago
  I believe your points were already well addressed, but lets take another stab at this. A number of studies have indicated that media displayed substantial bias during the primaries. That bias was directly in line with Clinton's campaign strategy, as stated in another child to the parent comment. https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidentia... I'm not sure what else you're looking for. More on the causation front? Studies on the effects of media coverage on candidates in political races have thoroughly discussed here and elsewhere since the election. More on the media bias side? I'm sure you can review the DNC leak as well as other post-election frequency reviews. There's a reason why people were outraged at the media post-election and subsequently why the 'fake news' scapegoat was trotted out as a narrative to salvage the worth of mainstream media's reputation.
  - ForrestN 10y ago
    What? From the summary of your link: "Why was Clinton’s coverage substantially more negative than Sanders’, and why did Sanders get so much less coverage than she did?" Did I ever claim the media wasn't biased? Of course the media had an effect on the election, and that effect wasn't neutral. The fact that the media has systemic biases does not imply that major media organizations conspired in favor of a candidate, Hillary Clinton, who was actually considered by most to have been negatively impacted in the general election, and according to the link you posted, was covered more negatively than Bernie Sanders. This is a giant mess conflating DNC problems with fundamental realities of news media with an unproven conspiracy theory. I have always been responding to this: "the corporate media [...] colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity in Bernie Sanders to help their friend and collaborator Hillary Clinton, and so we ended up with Donald Trump." I promise you, that is not the position of the Shorenstein Center or any other academic research organization focused on journalism.