HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Tuesday, September 06, 2016

 
"America and the world can’t afford another election tipped by innuendo."

by digby












I wrote about the press and its ongoing crusade for Salon today:


This election is about voters choosing the least worst candidate. That's where we are in our politics.

— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) September 4, 2016

That tweet from Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post's The Fix blog is cleverly framed to be about the voters' view of this campaign. Both candidates do have high unfavorable ratings among the public (as does the congress and pretty much every other institution, including the press.) However, that jaded comment by a member of the media illustrates something important. Some members of the press are not just commenting on a reality, they are pushing the theme of two equally unpalatable candidates and it just isn't true.

The main problem for Clinton is that people think she is a congenital liar. When asked what it is she lied about most people can't point to anything specific they just know she's dishonest and corrupt. The fact that she's been dogged by political enemies and investigated by special prosecutors, the media and the congress with unlimited budgets and every possible means of getting to the truth and has been exonerated doesn't seem to register. Indeed, the fact-checkers all find her to be more honest than virtually anyone in politics while Donald Trump, by contrast, lies more than he tells the truth.

In order to understand how this came to be, you have to go back to a column from 1996 in the New York Times by vicious right wing columnist William Safire who first dubbed her a "congenital liar." All the crimes he accused her of committing and lies he insisted she told later proved him to be the liar (or badly misinformed) but it didn't matter. For many reasons, not the least of which was simple sexism, it was set in stone that this feminist, lawyer first lady was devious, calculating and power mad -- Madame DeFarge and Evita rolled into one. The political press has filtered their coverage of her through that lens ever since.

As Amanda Marcotte documented in this piece the current "lock her up!" fever, that burning desire to see her her humiliated and imprisoned (or in some cases executed for treason) is not new. And it's no less disturbing now than it was then. It's fed by the press's insatiable appetite for juicy right wing tidbits doled out piece by piece, each story building on itself to create a narrative of crisis and criminality despite there being no evidence of it being true.

The assumption in the "Clinton Foundation scandal" is that the mere possibility of "impropriety" is a form of corruption despite there being absolutely no proof that any favoritism or transaction actually took place. (The fact that every politician in Washington from President Obama to lowly congressman have contacts every day with people who give them money for their campaigns directly doesn't put any of that in perspective for some reason.) She alone is being held liable for the systemic big money problem that infects our system from top to bottom.

Recently, there has been some push back coming from several journalistic quarters which is new. The erroneous AP report that Clinton had pretty much given exclusive access to Clinton Foundation donors was ably dispatched by Matthew Yglesias at Vox. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has challenged several stories, including the breathless "exposé" about a Clinton associate asking for diplomatic passports to rescue two journalists in North Korea. James Fallows in the Atlantic revisited his book from 20 years ago called "Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy" and lamented how the current coverage shows little improvement since then. Paul Waldman in the Washington Post took on the two competing "foundation" scandals, Trump's being an actual case of flat out bribery and Clinton's being ... nothing. And Paul Krugman devoted his column to a scathing critique of the press comparing it to the treatment of Al Gore in 2000, also a fake "liar" meme propagated by right wing oppo organizations to tar him as dishonest and mentally unstable. We all know how well that turned out.

I had to laugh at Sunday's silly New York Times story about Hillary Clinton hob-nobbing with wealthy donors as if that were a shocking display of arrogant elitism. Compare and contrast that with this story from 2012 about President Obama hob-nobbing with wealthy donors portrayed as an unpleasant but necessary duty in a time of big money dominance. One cannot escape the fact that Clinton is being held to a different standard.

Much of the criticism in general is focused on the New York Times which seems to have a strange institutional vendetta against both Clintons. It's hard to understand why this would be true over so many years but perhaps Jonathan Allen explained it best in this brutally honest piece called "Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary." This, I think can fairly be said to apply across the board, not just to the Times:
The Clinton rules are driven by reporters' and editors' desire to score the ultimate prize in contemporary journalism: the scoop that brings down Hillary Clinton and her family's political empire. At least in that way, Republicans and the media have a common interest.
This problem has deep roots in our political culture and it's potentially creating a serious crisis in 2016. If Donald Trump were to pull out a win the ramifications will be extreme. And he could. Nate Silver and the 538 gang of statisticians don't give him good odds but they do not believe it's impossible:
[Our model] shows Trump as having gained about 2 points over two weeks. If Trump keeps gaining 1 percentage point a week, he’ll beat Clinton by a couple of percentage points on Nov. 8. Hence, Clinton should probably not be picking out the White House drapes just yet.
Anyone who is sanguine about Trump losing needs to rethink their position. And the press needs to do a serious gut check about how they're conducting their campaign coverage. As Paul Krugman wrote in his Monday column, "America and the world can’t afford another election tipped by innuendo."