Friday, April 20 , 2018, 2:54 am | Fair 53º

 
 
 
 

Dick Polman: ​Hillary Clinton is Right About the Mainstream Media

Hillary Clinton’s new cri de coeur discomfits the many Democrats who yearn to put 2016 in the rear-view mirror. She dwells at length on all the factors that constituted the perfect storm — including her own weaknesses as a candidate — but I find myself nodding in agreement about one in particular.

She writes that many members of the mainstream media “can’t bear to face their own role in helping to elect (President Donald) Trump, from providing him with free air time to giving my emails three times more coverage than all the issues affecting people’s lives combined.”

She’s right.

The mainstream media — most notably The New York Times and the cable networks — helped grease the skids for Trump, precisely in the ways that she describes.

Clinton cites the media’s obsession with her emails and their relative lack of interest in the Trump-Russia connection that was increasingly apparent as the summer of 2016 wore on. Her people tried in vain to steer journalists to the Russia story.

“The media was accustomed to Trump peddling crazy conspiracy theories — like that Ted Cruz’s dad helped kill John F. Kennedy — and it acted as if the Russian hacking was ‘our’ conspiracy theory, a tidy false equivalency that let reporters and pundits sleep well at night,” she wrote.

Right-wingers have long whined about “the liberal media,” but 2016 proved — yet again — that the term is an absurd canard.

The so-called “liberal media” indulged President George W. Bush’s administration’s fact-free spin about weapons of mass destruction during the prelude to the disastrous war in Iraq — just as, decades earlier, it indulged President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration’s fact-free spin about Vietnam until it was glaringly obvious that the war was a bloody mistake.

And last year, the so-called “liberal” media got played again, bedazzled this time by Trump’s bright shiny objects.

Lest we forget, TV built up Trump with roughly $2 billion worth of free publicity.

CNN boss Jeff Zucker said it all last fall: “If we made any mistake (during the primaries), it’s that we probably did put on too many of his campaign rallies in those early months and let them run.”

And CBS executive Les Moonves chortled that Trump and the Republican Party race “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. The money’s rolling in, and this is fun ... It’s a terrible thing to say, but bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

Meanwhile, in the spring of 2015, The New York Times declared in a headline that “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.” Thanks to that story, lots of people believed the viral lie that Clinton, as secretary of state, personally sold uranium to the Russians in exchange for a donation to the Clinton Foundation.

In truth, Clinton had no personal involvement in the decision. The State Department was one of nine agencies that had to OK the deal, and the decision was made by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency group headed by the Treasury Department.

As for The Times’ alleged blockbuster, the key passage about the Clinton Foundation was buried in the 10th paragraph: “Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.”

A new study of the media coverage, released in August and conducted by scholars at Harvard and MIT, points out, “It was the clear insinuation of corruption in the headline, not the buried admission that no evidence of corruption was in fact uncovered, that made the April 2015 story one of the Times’ most tweeted stories during the summer (of 2016).”

And that was just one story among many. (I well recall an alleged Associated Press blockbuster, in the summer of 2016, which breathlessly concluded that the Clinton Foundation fuels “perceptions” of derring do.) More broadly, a media study released last December, crunched all the numbers and concluded:

“Donald Trump succeeded in shaping the election agenda. Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton’s coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump’s coverage focused on his core issues ... Coverage of Trump associated with immigration, jobs and trade was greater than that on his personal scandals.”

Yeah, his personal scandals.

How many stories did we read about Trump’s demonstrably longstanding ties to people in organized crime? Then ask yourself how many stories we likely would have seen if Clinton had dealt for decades with people in organized crime.

James Fallows, a commentator who’s no big fan of Clinton, points out: “No sane person can believe that the consequences of last fall’s election ... should have depended more than about 1 percent on what (she) did with her emails. The press is among the groups that messed this up, badly.”

All told, he added, Clinton “has gone a considerable distance toward facing her own responsibility for the current state of the country ... I’d like to see (the press) be as honest about their own responsibility.”

I have no problem with that.

Dick Polman is the national political columnist at NewsWorks/WHYY in Philadelphia, a “writer in residence” at the University of Pennsylvania and is syndicated by Cagle Cartoons. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter: @DickPolman1. Click here for previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.


Maestro, Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover, Debit

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >