Dustin, I agree with you on the point that the media wanted to see Clinton become the democratic nominee.
But you are missing the larger picture. Please allow me to connect the dots.
First of all, the Fourth Estate has never been neutral; it serves its own corporate interests. If the Wikileak emails showed some collusion with the DNC (I haven’t read them but I’ll take your word on it), is that any different than the way Cheney used Judith Miller and Robert Novak to sell the lies of the Iraq War and then the cover up that resulted in the Valerie Plame CIA outing? The media goes where the ratings go. And having another Clinton at the front of the news inflames the public and drives ratings.
I have a very personal experience which shows how perverted the media really is. In 2003, when the Iraq War started, you may remember all the images CNN showed of the shock and awe campaign, pulling down Hussein’s statue, and all the footage of our soldiers giving kids chocolate, building schools and helping civilians.
I had an Indian friend who told me his friends and family from back home called him during the early stages of the invasion and occupation to ask him what the hell was wrong with our country. They told him that all the CNN footage showed on their news was mothers weeping over their dead children, smoldering bodies, and the smoking ruins of Baghdad.
At first, I couldn’t believe that a self-proclaimed impartial news source like CNN chose to report different parts of the same news story to different audiences. Then I realized our media is driven by only one thing — ratings, because ratings translate into money.
Secondly, ask yourself the following questions:
- Who benefits from the inherent bias created since the media started using “he said, she said” reporting, which gives equal weight to what each side says, regardless of how insane it is?
- How much of the Clinton persona has been crafted by right wing talk radio, bloggers and Fox News since she was First Lady?
- How much time and resources have been used to investigate Clinton compared to the war criminals like Bush and Cheney and all the other small time crooks in Congress?
Third, a recent Harvard study conducted an analysis of eight different cable networks and newspapers and found that media companies devoted an unprecedented amount of coverage to Donald Trump from the start of his campaign, effectively shutting out over a dozen of his competitors. The Shorenstein analysis also learned that the Republican candidates got roughly twice as much media coverage as the Democratic candidates.
In addition, although Clinton got far more coverage than Sanders, she got breathtakingly negative coverage, even compared to Trump:
How is the media in bed with the DNC when Clinton got such massive negative coverage?
I think if you look at the bigger picture, my statement about the media’s desire for a tight race between Trump and Clinton is backed by a much wider range of factors than simply the email revelations of a Clinton bias versus Sanders in the Democratic primary.