SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 1) by driven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:01AM
Re-read what I said. I never said anything specifically about the classified emails - you did. I also never asked you to "dig through the trash" - you did that on your own.
As for a specific lie, I'm not going to bother pointing one out because it doesn't matter. If only 25% or 50% of the "lies" turn out to be really lies, that's still a shit load of lies. Even of the "obvious" lies I have no way to prove them myself, and even if I could there's nothing I can do about it. The media itself is allowed to lie by law, so half of what I read could be complete bullshit. Now with all the lies and misinformation and selective coverage out there, I try and not worry myself to death about it all thus my reluctance to get too deep into this topic with you. I am not out to convince you or anyone else. You have an Internet search like the rest of us and can form your own opinion. If you really think she's totally above board then good for you. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. But damn, there is a wealth of material out there that suggests she isn't.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by captain normal on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:23AM
Just when did you stop beating your wife? What percent of what you write is untruthful? Is that a shit load of lies? Or just a a load of shit? Are you actually getting paid to post this crap?
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:47AM
Don't you know?
Whenever there is smoke, there must be fire.
Even if its just somebody blowing smoke up your ass - it burns!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:40AM
Here you go, pal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY [youtube.com]
Learn to use Google.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:33AM
Yes, I picked the classified emails because that's the big, big, big one nowadays and I had the links at hand. It was illustrative of how one of the biggest "bold-faced lies" was actually nothing. Others which I have looked into over the last few months include Vince Foster, Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, her Saul Alinsky connection, her palling around with a KKK organizer, her "misconduct" during Watergate and even her support for Barry Goldwater. All completely mundane.
> I'm not going to bother pointing one out because it doesn't matter.
Well if you aren't willing to go into specifics, don't pretend that your opinion is based on anything more than the feels. I have spent the time to look into specifics and EVERY SINGLE TIME it was bullshit. There may well be non-bullshit cases I have not looked into. But I am not interested in campaigning for her, so I don't have enough time to run down every accusation against her from her entire career. I went with the highlights.
I started out with a very low opinion of her, but long ago I learned the hardest thing to do was to doubt what I want to believe. So now I always try to "prove me wrong" and it turned out it was pretty damn easy to do in her case. I don't have a positive opinion of her (I had no interest in her highlight reel) just that at worst she is a competent bureaucrat who sucks at "shaking hands and kissing babies."
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:39PM
Yes, I picked the classified emails because that's the big, big, big one nowadays and I had the links at hand. It was illustrative of how one of the biggest "bold-faced lies" was actually nothing.
If all these emails allegations are "actually nothing," then why the hell did they go to so much trouble to try to cover it up?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:31PM
Covering them up and deleting all those emails is obstruction of justice even if there wasn't an issue to begin with. The DoJ should have taken her to task for that alone. Not to mention that she was supposed to turn over all the work emails when she left office and didn't do that until 2 years later.
Even under the most generous interpretation of her antics, she's still a criminal.