PDA

View Full Version : No Consequences From Media Colluding With Hillary



jimnyc
10-24-2016, 01:09 PM
No Consequences From Media Peers for Reporters Caught Colluding With Hillary

Decades before social media and email, a remarkable but unsung Bronx housewife named Ruth Goldstock told her grandson, “Never put anything in writing that you wouldn’t want on the front page of The New York Times.”

These days, that wise advice applies to private communications by everybody in the entire country except elite journalists and news executives.

Elsewhere in America, when emails that the author assumed would never see the light of day became public he suffers some form of consequences—you know, stuff like plummeting poll numbers, possible jail time or forced resignation. This goes for everybody from Hillary Clinton and the former head of Sony Pictures on down.

But if you’re a Politico or New York Times scribe or CNBC anchor John Harwood and hacked emails emerge that reveal you outright colluding with Hillary Clinton campaign—by giving advice or providing the communications director “veto” power over what to include from your interview with the candidate or allowing campaign chair John Podesta veto power over your stories—that is another matter.

Your media friends will not censure you or even scold you—in fact, they don’t bother to contact you directly. Instead, you can hide between a crafty spokesman who won’t even answer specific questions but acts like he’s the publicist for some elusive Hollywood star and that a journalist determined to ask standard pointed questions is actually pining to profile him for Vanity Fair.

That was essentially the response from Politico spokesman Brad Dayspring when this columnist asked to interview reporter Glenn Thrush about his newly revealed emails. Dream on, he replied, emailing me: “I want to play third base for the Yankees.”

Hacked emails reveal that Thrush has apologized to campaign chairman John Podesta for writing a “shitty” story that embarrassed the operation. In another email, Thrush called himself a “hack” and promised to let Podesta approve parts of his story on the campaign’s fundraising efforts.

“No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u,” he wrote. “Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything.”

In multiple email exchanges, Politico spokesman Brad Dayspring, who would not even give out his own phone, did not answer a single factual question about Thrush. But did call him one of the “top political reporters in the country.”

Really? Top reporters theoretically treat both sides equally. Has he ever given Republicans advance copies of stories? If so, who?

When Daily Caller reporter Alex Pfeiffer made similar inquiries to Dayspring about Thrush he was also stonewalled. The flack proceeded to question Pfeiffer’s objectivity because he had called Thrush a “fucking joke” on Twitter. But again ignored specific questions.

Ironically, Pfeiffer’s bon mot was in response to Thrush tweeting something that illustrated his own rank bias. Thrush said that he would not have written one of his stories if he could have known it would end up helping the Trump campaign.

Dayspring followed the same game plan when it emerged in another hacked email that Politico investigative reporter Ken Vogel sent an entire draft of his story to the DNC communications director for approval.

Rest here - http://observer.com/2016/10/no-consequences-from-media-peers-for-reporters-caught-colluding-with-hillary/

Kathianne
10-24-2016, 08:29 PM
The media has already taken hits for their bias-have you checked the ratings of news programs or the circulation numbers for newspapers? They are not trusted and polls bear that out. As time goes on, the distrust of the media will only grow, which is not without its perils.

Hillary will pay a price down the road for both using the media and for her abuses, not necessarily by loss of the election, but in how she is treated once she gets in.

Her email problems from that server did not disappear with Comey's pardon, one he really shouldn't have given. They will continue to haunt her, and the wikileaks will settle into the narrative over time. (Time was too short to significantly change the election in all likelihood.) Her 'negatives' were already close to Trump's throughout the campaign, when he's gone, (assuming she does win), they will get worse. She is going to have a hell of a time governing, even her supporters don't like her.

gabosaurus
10-24-2016, 09:33 PM
I am fairly certain that the media will stop colluding with Hillary in a couple of weeks. :rolleyes:

After that, you can entertain yourself with Trump TV.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/24/trump-tv-facebook-live-us-election-media-tomi-lahren

Kathianne
10-24-2016, 10:53 PM
The media has already taken hits for their bias-have you checked the ratings of news programs or the circulation numbers for newspapers? They are not trusted and polls bear that out. As time goes on, the distrust of the media will only grow, which is not without its perils.

Hillary will pay a price down the road for both using the media and for her abuses, not necessarily by loss of the election, but in how she is treated once she gets in.

Her email problems from that server did not disappear with Comey's pardon, one he really shouldn't have given. They will continue to haunt her, and the wikileaks will settle into the narrative over time. (Time was too short to significantly change the election in all likelihood.) Her 'negatives' were already close to Trump's throughout the campaign, when he's gone, (assuming she does win), they will get worse. She is going to have a hell of a time governing, even her supporters don't like her.

While this thread is about the media, to my above observation here's a bit of something related to 'other corruption' that is the result of the illegal, but de facto pardoned email issues. Governing will not be easy, indeed may be impossible:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441380/hillary-clinton-email-investigation-fbi-terry-mcauliffe-allies-donate-campaign


Clinton Crony’s Allies Donated $675,000 to Political Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY October 24, 2016 1:58 PM

A thick fog of impropriety continues to linger around Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal. Every time you think you must have heard the last of the irregularities in the Clinton e-mails investigation, another shoe drops. So now we learn that the political backers of a longtime Clinton crony and fixer, Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, made $675,000 in cash and in-kind contributions to the election campaign of the wife of the FBI official who later ran the investigation of Mrs. Clinton.

...

The appearance of impropriety here is disturbing, but it should be put in perspective. The FBI investigation overseen by Deputy Director McCabe uncovered significant evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Mrs. Clinton and her associates — they obviously put together a strong case despite being significantly undermined by the Justice Department. The decision to recommend against prosecution was made by FBI director James Comey, not McCabe. It was highly unusual for the FBI to make a public recommendation about prosecution, and Comey’s was primarily based not on the evidence but on his legal analysis of the relevant statutes (which is even more unusual since that is not the FBI’s job).

The ultimate decision, moreover, was made not by the FBI but by the Obama Justice Department. On that score, we now know (a) the president, using an alias, had willfully e-mailed Clinton’s private account, notwithstanding that he later told the public he’d learned about her use of private e-mail from news reports, so any charges brought against Clinton would have implicated him — that was not going to happen; (b) while the investigation was still underway, President Obama endorsed Clinton, and he made public statements indicating her actions did not endanger national security, undermining the case against her; and (c) Obama’s attorney general furtively met with former President Bill Clinton — i.e., the husband of the main subject of the investigation — shortly before announcing (after Comey’s unusual public recommendation) that the case was being closed without charges.

...

Consulting closely with defense lawyers for the Clinton team, the Justice Department forbade the FBI to interrogate witnesses about central events in the case (like the process of sorting Clinton’s e-mails before surrendering some to the State Department and attempting to destroy over 32,000 others). The Justice Department further restricted the FBI’s examination of laptop computers, and then agreed to destroy those computers. Laptop computers and smart phones containing classified information apparently were “lost” without an explanation. Meantime, the State Department pressured government intelligence agencies to downgrade the information in Clinton’s e-mails so it would not appear that she’d trafficked in classified information. Then you have the aforementioned culpable involvement of the president in the case and the mind-blowing meeting of Attorney General Loretta Lynch with Bill Clinton — who, not coincidentally, is the president who launched Lynch into prominence by appointing her to a coveted U.S. attorney’s position in the early ’90s, and likely would have a lot to say about whether Lynch is retained as attorney general in a Hillary Clinton administration.

These and other factors explain why the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to bring charges against Hillary Clinton is not an exoneration — and will never be seen as such. The new disclosures of political and financial ties between the Clinton machine and the wife of the FBI official who oversaw the Clinton investigation is more fuel for the fire. Hillary Clinton may win the election in two weeks, but the dark clouds over her are not clearing.