First, thanks for admitting that the security lapse was a non-issue, since the last eighteen months spent by the media and the GOP were focused primarily on that issue. (And considering the private meetings with national leaders that double as business opportunities, the phone calls by Trump on unsecured lines with foreign leaders, and the massive security threat in giving classified clearance to Trump’s children, generals who have consulting contracts with the Turkish government, and conspiracy theorist lunatics, it’s clear we have much more pressing problems at hand.)
Second, Clinton’s obfuscation was frustrating, but should not have been the thing that disqualified her from becoming president.
Third, if you want to sound like a reasonable, objective person, try to avoid calling me a liar. If you were truly objective, you might say, “this claim is false,” or “these facts disprove that claim,” or even “you may believe this, but here’s the evidence to the contrary.” In each case, you dispute my argument but you don’t attempt to tell me what my motivations are.
Since you at least cite a couple of sources for your argument, I will assume that you actually value facts and logic.
So here is study on the general election by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy:
News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters - Shorenstein Center
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news…
The key quote here is how the media failed the public:
The study found that, on topics relating to the candidates’ fitness for office, Clinton and Trump’s coverage was virtually identical in terms of its negative tone. “Were the allegations surrounding Clinton of the same order of magnitude as those surrounding Trump?” asks Patterson. “It’s a question that political reporters made no serious effort to answer during the 2016 campaign.”
So you have to tell me, were the allegations surrounding Clinton of the same order of magnitude as those surrounding Trump?
And if they were not, why would they create this false equivalency, other than to create a spectacle to increase ratings and newspaper sales?
Now, let’s look at what the media did and didn’t do during the last few weeks of the campaign:
- Almost no coverage of the Trump U fraud case; instead, the media was completely focused on James Comey’s actions.
- Non-stop coverage of the horse race, with virtually no discussion of policy. For example, if you search for “how many economists against Trump tax plan,” you will find 1.2 million results. The first page articles clustered around four dates. The articles report how his tax plan “offers almost nothing for the middle class (Aug. 8),” “is an impossible blend (Sept. 16),” “mocked by Conservative economists (Sept. 26),” and “slammed by prominent economists (Nov. 1)” who called him a “dangerous, destructive choice” for the country. Now, do a search for “Clinton FBI emails.” There are 35.1 million results, with stories on the first four pages clustered the entire week between Oct. 30 and Nov. 7.
- Failure to fact check in real time (this is specific to news shows). Anyone with an internet connection could point out the false information being spewed by talking heads. Moderators could have stopped discussions by pointing out simple facts. For example, I saw a video from a talk show where a Trump talking head said the 90% of the Quran is Sharia law. Afterwards, a liberal talking head disputed her claim, and then the conversation deteriorated into cross talk and deflections. In the time it took to write this sentence, I found out that the Koran contains 500 references to law out of a total 6,236 verses.
Am I unhappy with having been stuck with Clinton as a candidate? Yes. I was a Bernie supporter. But in spite of all the problems you noted in your response about problems with the campaign and with the DNC, we were stuck between her and the Trumpocalypse.
And we are already seeing the signs.
The conflict of interest issues are happening too fast to even follow (plus, an unknown number of deals that are obvious to the public).
The ties between Trump’s campaign and Putin, the Russian hacking and its intent to affect our election.
The president-elect’s cabinet choices: a climate change denier nominated to head the EPA, a fast food billionaire who’s against raising the minimum wage to head the Bureau of Labor, a confirmed racist and anti-pot hardliner to head the DOJ, and a swamp full of Wall Street alligators to occupy the top economic positions in the cabinet.
And the neverending stream of lies, which create this Orwellian nightmare where 30% of the people of this country live in an alternate reality fueled by fake news.
It all foreshadows a horrific attack on everything we hold dear as a country.
And if you are going to be honest and objective, do you really believe that things would be just as bad under Clinton?