Don't Think The Media Is Biased for Clinton?
I know the guy's a flawed, bombastic pompous ass. So was Churchill.
The point is, not even satan himself would get 91% negative media coverage. Come to think of it, satan would get 91% positive coverage from the mainstream media we have today.
Around every election, basic cable stations dust off their copies of All the President’s Men and start airing it. For better or for worse, Watergate is still central to modern politics and especially modern journalism. It's encouraging, of course, that we still want to believe no American, including the president, is above the law, and that all we need to stop corruption is for enterprising journalists to expose it. However, this year might well be the death knell of the Watergate mythos. In 2016, we learned that exposing prosecutable corruption at the highest levels is no impediment to a presidential campaign, nor is it a particular problem for the current president.
Earlier this year, Kristian Saucier, a sailor found guilty of taking six photos of the interior of a nuclear submarine on his phone, was sentenced to a year in prison, along with six months' home confinement, 100 hours of community service, and a ban on owning guns. Such photos are considered "confidential" information, the lowest level of classification. When The Weekly Standard reached out to the Hillary Clinton campaign to ask if they could explain why Saucier was convicted, but Clinton was not prosecuted for mishandling 110 emails on her private server marked as classified at the time they were sent and 22 emails that contained "top secret" information—the highest level of classification—they did not respond. Nor have any other media elicited a response, assuming any have sought one...
...Thanks to WikiLeaks, we know that when President Obama claimed to have first learned about Clinton's illegal email server in the news he was almost certainly lying. In fact, as soon as the New York Times reported his claim of ignorance, Hillary Clinton's lawyer Cheryl Mills (also her chief of staff at State) sent an email to John Podesta saying, "We need to clean this up—he [Obama] has emails from her—they do not say state.gov." Podesta also sent a note to Mills inquiring whether they could enlist Obama to hold back inquiries into Clinton's emails by asserting executive privilege...
But just because Clinton escaped legal jeopardy doesn't mean she should escape judgment in the court of public opinion. This, however, would require an aggressive media determined to hold the most powerful leaders in the land accountable, if that's where the facts lead them.[my emphasis]
The lessons of Watergate, however, have never been applied to the Obama White House. Hillary Clinton's email scandal isn't an outlier; it's the culmination of a presidency that has been contemptuous of accountability and public scrutiny from day one. Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress after he withheld 92 percent of the relevant documents from investigators, ignoring subpoenas, and silenced Justice Department employees in the investigation relating to the still-unexplained Fast and Furious scandal, in which the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms gave Mexican drug cartels thousands of guns resulting in scores of deaths, including that of a U.S. border patrol agent.
Even after Obama preposterously insisted there was not a "smidgen of corruption" at the IRS, despite the agency's admission that it had improperly targeted conservative groups seeking nonprofit status, the IRS defied a congressional subpoena and destroyed 24,000 emails to and from Lois Lerner, the official most implicated in the corruption. Not a single IRS employee has ever faced charges.
And Eric Holder, former EPA secretary Lisa Jackson, and former health and human services secretary Kathleen Sebelius were all known to have used email pseudonyms for public business in ways that, to varying degrees, may have run afoul of the law. Use of email pseudonyms in the Obama administration was so pervasive, the recent revelations suggest the idea of doing so may have come straight from the top.
On October 23, many liberals were no doubt happy to ignore the guest on Fox News Sunday who declared that the dealings of the Clinton Foundation were incontrovertibly "corrupt" and that "it's a scandal," before going on to decry the fact there is "no formal investigation going on now" of "the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which [Hillary Clinton] ran."
These remarks were largely tuned out by the media, as though they were the ravings of some random blowhard. But they weren't. They came straight from the lips of Bob Woodward, Mr. Watergate himself. It's a telling commentary on the partisanship of American journalism that when Bob Woodward speaks of holding presidents accountable, no one is willing to listen."