Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
But there's a difference between one article about the FBI mentioning a new source of emails that has to be examined and covering the entire front page with what amounts to speculation.
But you are right about the constant stream, at least in part. Again I think the coverage has been disproportionate and at times irresponsible, but it is how the way the media currently works (which should change).
I think that was the intent behind the Podesta emails too incidentally, being dripped out a bit at a time, the intent that they'd be in the news constantly. It hasn't really worked out as most of the emails are benign and only appeal to people who are willing to think Clinton is a satanist based on Podesta's dinner invitations.
But I disagree that the media has been kind to Clinton, analysis of coverage shows that the media has focused on the mostly irrelevant story of the emails (contributing to the conflating of the different things going on into one big story in the minds of voters), giving that far more time than all the other things combined. That's hardly positive.
|
The media was very kind to Hillary, especially in the primaries. The one thing the Podesta emails continue to highlight is the rather cozy relationship between many media outlets and the Clinton Campaign. I mean, it was only in March when Sanders had significant negative attention turned on him, which was largely unfounded.
Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours
As I mentioned before many media outlets have picked sides during this presidential campaign and that has caused many to start looking at other not so reputable sources. Combine this with Google altering their search results for HRC and you are having more people start to distrust "mainstream" sources.