Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the she's-overcome-so-much dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

Paul Krugman did something that he made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.” While generously acknowledging that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised by the Clintons as she pursued increasing levels of political power — vast sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as a public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.

Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democrats — not just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as marginalized and besieged as the former First Lady, two-term New York Senator, Secretary of State, and current establishment-backed multi-millionaire presidential front-runner. Krugman — in a tweet-proclamation that has now been re-tweeted more than 10,000 times — heralded himself this way: “I was reluctant to write today’s column because I knew journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty.”

[...] The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms — such as Vox, and The Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the columnists and editorialists of The New York Times and The Washington Post, and most major New-York-based weekly magazines — have been openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I don’t personally see anything wrong with that — I’m glad when journalists shed their faux-objectivity; I believe the danger of Trump’s candidacy warrants that; and I hope this candor continues past the November election — but the everyone-is-against-us self-pity from Clinton partisans is just a joke. They are the dominant voices in elite media discourse, and it’s a big reason why Clinton is highly likely to win.

That’s all the more reason why journalists should be subjecting Clinton’s financial relationships, associations, and secret communications to as much scrutiny as Donald Trump’s. That certainly does not mean that journalists should treat their various sins and transgressions as equivalent: nothing in the campaign compares to Trump’s deport-11-million-people or ban-all-Muslim policies, or his attacks on a judge for his Mexican ethnicity, etc. But this emerging narrative that Clinton should not only enjoy the support of a virtually united elite class but also a scrutiny-free march into the White House is itself quite dangerous. Clinton partisans in the media — including those who regard themselves as journalists — will continue to reflexively attack all reporting that reflects negatively on her, but that reporting should nonetheless continue with unrestrained aggression.

Source: The Intercept


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:17AM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:17AM (#398429) Homepage Journal

    I'll have to give that a try.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Funny=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:33AM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:33AM (#398437)

    First of all, well played, sir.

    Second of all, damnit. I'm sorry :(

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:39AM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:39AM (#398438) Homepage Journal

      What really does get me down is the people who won't give me a job because they've found out I'm mentally ill.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:01AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:01AM (#398612)
        If you're desperate you can try to run for President of the US of A. It's a very dangerous job though. About 9% have died due to job-related causes. One of the most dangerous jobs in the world.

        Very few sane and smart people would go for the job (you might as well be one of the congress critters - lower responsibility/blame, lower assassination risk, no term limits, not very much lower pay, better lifestyle; or one of those behind the scenes pulling the strings ;) ).
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:45PM

        by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:45PM (#398682) Journal
        Don't be put off by the other poster. There are a lot of political offices other than President, and you'd be the sanest applicant for a lot of them...
        --
        sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:37AM (#398975)

        Out of curiosity, since I have a mental illness but choose (and fortunately am able to) to hide that fact, what percentage of your prospective clients would you say don't give you a job because they discriminate against you?

        • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:44AM

          by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:44AM (#398981) Homepage Journal

          Clients and prospective hiring managers have a way of growing very, very quiet.

          I figure they googled my name.

          while discrimination against me is unlawful under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act as well as the various state age-antidiscrimination laws, I have no way of knowing who googled me first then chose not to contact me.

          I know that I'm quite good at SEO, and I have lots of Top 10 keywords, so I should be getting scads of clients.

          It is a sacrifice, but I chose to go public largely to help people like you who wish to remain private.

          --
          Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:11AM (#398467)

    I'm mad as hell
    But I'm not going to take it anymore