In response to an FT article by Edward Luce on 14th October 2016, entitled 'Ostrich Republicans disown Trump but cling to election hope'
Personally I would not allow either of these candidates to walk my dog, let alone vote for them, and I suspect that if the ballot included the option 'Start Again'...it would win by a landslide.
Worse than the candidates however, if that is possible, has been the coverage of the so called 'quality media' that includes the FT, NYT, WSJ, WaPo, CNN, etc, which have made a mockery of investigative or even objective journalism, with their willful blindness to Mrs. Clinton's 'crimes'.
However, the first chink of light to penetrate this pathetic excuse for journalism appeared in the Wall Street Journal Thursday night, which ran an article by Kimberley Strassel, a member of its editorial board, entitled "The Press Buries Hillary Clinton's Sins':
It starts like this:
“If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.
But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.
It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency”
It goes on to review a selection of the issues raised by the leaked emails, one of which is the following:
“Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton’s emails—three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot”
It outlines involvement from the White House:
“The Obama administration—the federal government, supported by tax dollars—was working as an extension of the Clinton campaign. The State Department coordinated with her staff in responding to the email scandal, and the Justice Department kept her team informed about developments in the court case.
And corrupt links between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation:
Worse, Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation. In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were “FOB” (Friends of Bill) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs). Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren’t? Routed to a standard government website.
The leaks show that the foundation was indeed the nexus of influence and money. The head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Ira Magaziner, suggested in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton call Sheikh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia to thank him for offering the use of a plane. In response, a top Clinton Foundation official wrote: “Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do.”
On the press itself, Ms. Strassel has this to say:
“The leaks also show that the press is in Mrs. Clinton’s pocket. Donna Brazile, a former Clinton staffer and a TV pundit, sent the exact wording of a coming CNN town hall question to the campaign in advance of the event. Other media allowed the Clinton camp to veto which quotes they used from interviews, worked to maximize her press events and offered campaign advice"
The piece closes with an assessment of Mrs. Clinton's integrity as a candidate:
“Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease “the Red Army”—i.e. “the base of the Democratic Party”
So...Mr. Luce...What have you got to say about these criticisms?
There have been a number of responses to my post, one of which said this:
“I don’t think that your comments are any different than the complaints Republicans have been making about the press for the last four decades. In the face of such complaints, Republicans have won slightly more than half of the presidential elections. Perhaps the best timing would be to wait until your candidate loses on Election Day and then bring forth the conspiracy complaints”
Apart from demonstrating the possible effect that Twitter has had on humanity's ability to read anything longer than 140 characters, the number of 'recommends' this attracted is interesting...at least it would be if opinion polls were reliable indicators. Some 17 hours after I posted the original comment, 19 people have 'recommended' it, whilst 18 people have 'recommended' the above response. This may tell us nothing whatsoever...or it may suggest this...if it is true that we get the press that we deserve, it seems that on the question of whether we deserve better...the jury is still out. But then I would say that, wouldn't I? :-)
A good weekend and best wishes to all, MarkGB