Looks like French media is driven by journalistic standards, while the U.S, media is driven by money money money.
3
Hillary Clinton's use of private email and server were nothing more than a wrist slapping-worthy ignoring of State Dept protocol that was hardly followed to the letter by everyone (including previous Secretaries of State) or even enforced equally among all members of the State Dept over the years. There was no scandalous or nefarious usage by Mrs. Clinton any more than what was uncovered by the ridiculous multiple, costly and time wasting Benghazi hearings which were not coincidentally used by Republicans to destroy Hillary Clinton's character while the media took the bait.
Mrs. Clinton is a brilliant, honorable and highly experienced public servant; Donald Trump is not. Donald Trump is a lying imbecile who won the presidential election fraudulently. He is more mob boss and noting remotely like a noble and respected leader of the free world.
Mrs. Clinton is a brilliant, honorable and highly experienced public servant; Donald Trump is not. Donald Trump is a lying imbecile who won the presidential election fraudulently. He is more mob boss and noting remotely like a noble and respected leader of the free world.
6
What incredible nonsense, as might be expected from a New York Times Op-Ed columnist.
The DNC hacked emails “small beer” or “ordinariness?” How about showing a prolonged concerted effort to rig the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton. Just as Bernie Sanders claimed, and just as the media now in David Leonhardt’s firing line dismissed. Not for nothing did the DNC chairman have to resign.
Thanks so much to Mr. Leonhardt for admitting that Hillary Clinton’s private email server was “a real news story.” A “real news story” not as Mr. Leonhardt would minimally pigeonhole it but in the sense that the person who was the Democratic standard bearer for the White House had clearly violated the law with that server, had clearly repeatedly lied about it, including under oath (that’s called perjury), clearly should have been indicted, and clearly wasn’t indicted attributable only to Democratic politics (we had a Democratic administration then, remember).
The excuses never run out. It was Comey, it was the Russians, it was this, it was that, now it’s the big bad media. The New York Times has a Public Editor. David Leonhardt is now the self-anointed Public Editor for all journalism in the United States, justifying his willingness to add to the pile of bogus Hillary Clinton excuses with the high-blown statement that his motivation is a journalism that is “vital to democracy.” Then comes the clincher. “Vital” because the United States now has “a president who lies all the time.”
The DNC hacked emails “small beer” or “ordinariness?” How about showing a prolonged concerted effort to rig the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton. Just as Bernie Sanders claimed, and just as the media now in David Leonhardt’s firing line dismissed. Not for nothing did the DNC chairman have to resign.
Thanks so much to Mr. Leonhardt for admitting that Hillary Clinton’s private email server was “a real news story.” A “real news story” not as Mr. Leonhardt would minimally pigeonhole it but in the sense that the person who was the Democratic standard bearer for the White House had clearly violated the law with that server, had clearly repeatedly lied about it, including under oath (that’s called perjury), clearly should have been indicted, and clearly wasn’t indicted attributable only to Democratic politics (we had a Democratic administration then, remember).
The excuses never run out. It was Comey, it was the Russians, it was this, it was that, now it’s the big bad media. The New York Times has a Public Editor. David Leonhardt is now the self-anointed Public Editor for all journalism in the United States, justifying his willingness to add to the pile of bogus Hillary Clinton excuses with the high-blown statement that his motivation is a journalism that is “vital to democracy.” Then comes the clincher. “Vital” because the United States now has “a president who lies all the time.”
4
The feeling shared by at least half the nation is that main stream media and the Democratic party are inseparable. This explains why that polling consistently underestimated Trumps support all through the primary and at the general election.
I find it extremely troubling that CNN would even think of hiring Donna Brazile, former Clinton campaign manager as a journalist. What is even more ridiculous is that there is barely any mention or outrage that she gave Clinton questions in advance. Maybe, just maybe, Trump would not look as idiotic if he had the questions before hand. How about Stephanopoulos on CNN, CGI donor interviewing Clinton. Putin probably had a clear favorite, but so did MSM.
Lastly, all this focus on Trump. Democrats hold less seats in Congress and the State Legislatures and Governorships than at any point in the last century. Democrats have driven themselves off the cliff, and while they are in free fall, they keep stepping on the accelerator.
Its great to hear that Hillary Clinton is fundraising again.......it seems to be a permanent goal for the Clintons to make sure that get a cut of every political dollar in America. I can't wait for Chelsea Clinton to run, because I know of absolutely no Democrat more deserving to be Senator or President.
I find it extremely troubling that CNN would even think of hiring Donna Brazile, former Clinton campaign manager as a journalist. What is even more ridiculous is that there is barely any mention or outrage that she gave Clinton questions in advance. Maybe, just maybe, Trump would not look as idiotic if he had the questions before hand. How about Stephanopoulos on CNN, CGI donor interviewing Clinton. Putin probably had a clear favorite, but so did MSM.
Lastly, all this focus on Trump. Democrats hold less seats in Congress and the State Legislatures and Governorships than at any point in the last century. Democrats have driven themselves off the cliff, and while they are in free fall, they keep stepping on the accelerator.
Its great to hear that Hillary Clinton is fundraising again.......it seems to be a permanent goal for the Clintons to make sure that get a cut of every political dollar in America. I can't wait for Chelsea Clinton to run, because I know of absolutely no Democrat more deserving to be Senator or President.
2
US journalists and news organizations are not interested in the truth or the mundane. All news is scoured and printed with the most salacious reinterpretation headlining the report. Shame on all of you! Your skull drudgery knows no depths. We have no faith in your reporting and sadly, it leaves news organizations open to "fake news" allegations. You have only yourself to blame!
1
What this reader would like to know is if there is an effective faux news confederation thriving in France like the one that is still celebrating here.
Leonhardt is negligent by not folding such information into his critique, as if all American media were like the NYTimes.
Leonhardt is negligent by not folding such information into his critique, as if all American media were like the NYTimes.
1
American journalists are entranced by all of Donald J. Rockefeller's shiny dimes whenever they sparkle and glint in the sunlight of a new day. Not everything is "breaking news" when the dime-giver is eager to distract from other topics. Some maturity is warranted, not racing to claim a scoop-that-ain't.
2
it's pretty obvious to many people that lots of americans don't believe they have even a teeny weeny thing to learn from (or about) other countries. i'm sure there will be comments about freedom of the press, but despite what many americans might think, the usa doesn't score particularly well in press freedom.
1
I think you're wrong. Nothing wrong about reporting the emails. And that's the worst they could find on her. Those that voted for rethuglicans did so because they embraced their Walpurgis night scenario. That she couldn't shift the narrative is why she lost. It speaks poorly of the voters but so it is. Who was it that said: nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people? (Actually it's a mashup of Mencken and Barnum)
2
Let's face it. We have more " uneducated " voters here. And they overwhelmingly voted for their beloved Donald. You can't fix stupid.
You can only ensure that more of your side vote. Every election, every time. Very simple, and very effective.
You can only ensure that more of your side vote. Every election, every time. Very simple, and very effective.
2
Media treatment of Hillary was always been nonprofessional and sexist. Sexism is pervasive and insidious. This is only one of many times when the media has lacked professional judgement.
The entire email issue was overblown. A simple analysis of the issue from the tech viewpoint would have revealed this. It was not done by the press. Think about it. The FBI supposedly investigated it from the standpoint of dilberately mishandling confidential information. Yet her server was not hacked.
The entire email issue was overblown. A simple analysis of the issue from the tech viewpoint would have revealed this. It was not done by the press. Think about it. The FBI supposedly investigated it from the standpoint of dilberately mishandling confidential information. Yet her server was not hacked.
3
The New York Times ran front page stories on Clinton's aide's ex-husband's e-mails--with which Clinton had no more to do than I have with my administrative assistant's boyfriend's brother's DUI. But we were assured that "shadows" had been cast on Clinton in the matter. Time and again, mountains were made of molehills by the NYT--not just Fox, but the NTY, and even now you go on about a private server without noting the open fact that Colin Powell advised her when she became SOS to avoid the state department servers, as they were so prone to hacking. He said that he e-mailed world leaders on AOL, if you can imagine. But even with that admitted quite a while back, before the election (following leaks of his own e-mails), the media cared nothing for it, or for what it showed regarding a lack of wicked motives or even folly on Clinton's part. Even in this article, it just doesn't matter why, the negative narrative will go on to the end. I have been greatly disappointed in the New York Times, and I don't see much reason to hope for better now.
3
When Hillary gave her first " 'splanation" hardly anyone believed, based upon her history of " 'splanations" that it was not going to be false, have to be "clarified", etc. For the last 25 years, whenever a Clinton gives a first explanation of some situation, it never stands up to scrutiny. The email "kerfuffle" (that resulted in the compromising of classified data) just confirmed that she hadn't learned a thing in 25 years about the problems of lying, and that when caught, lying is her "go to" response.
1
As President Obama said, "elections have consequences," The media didn't hear that. Now this election is going to have far-reaching consequences, mostly in the direction of limiting Americans' rights, making life more difficult for those who already struggle, further enriching the rich, and increasing private corporate control over American justice and politics (and media). These will affect - afflict - lives of the grandchildren of those being born today, and maybe their grandchildren.
All this you knew.
Mea culpas are irrelevant. The damage is done. Hang your collective head.
All this you knew.
Mea culpas are irrelevant. The damage is done. Hang your collective head.
1
I think one thing observing politics over the last 25 year can teach you is there is an almost instinctive dislike for HRC amongst a broad swath of the population. I think only the history books will be able to fully explain it, but its clear that the American media was following a well-tested formula: *dislike of Hillary sells.*
Yes, the media encouraged it, but dislike of Hillary has a life of its own. And I think the proof of that is when you hear her attacked that you never hear Obama attacked--despite the fact that he held more power than she ever will.
Yes, the media encouraged it, but dislike of Hillary has a life of its own. And I think the proof of that is when you hear her attacked that you never hear Obama attacked--despite the fact that he held more power than she ever will.
1
I'm shocked, shocked, to find that greed does not always lead to good. Next you'll be suggesting that the racetrack exists, not for exercise for the health of the horses, nor for the financial benefit of the winning bettors, but for the profit of the racetrack owners. Journalists are mere jockeys, and it turns out that, idealistic as they are, they are not in charge, but just along for the ride. But thank you for your service.
There was a time when "The News" was treated like a public service and journalists tried to give the public a more complete understanding of the issues. The press and TV had to comply with certain FCC rules - such as "no porn" and "the family hour" and they had to tell the "truth". News was equated with education and knowledge. As soon as "news" became "entertainment", the media owners decided to cash in on our ignorance by conflating every event as "breaking news".
1
The American media ate up the Hillary Clinton email "scandal" like dogs going for "Kibble n' Bits" and they'll do it again in any future election. Our current "News" media are consumed by an entertainment bias that would disgust the likes of Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite.
1
Comments by the Clinton enablers and apologists are getting quite tiresome. Leonhardt's trivial dismissal of the DNC efforts (i.e. fed questions prior to a debate) to continually undermine Sanders was only one item on a long list of credibility issues to discount so as to get the anointed one elected. There is always someone else to blame except Clinton. Thank God she lost. And I can't wait to see everything implode from Trump's complete incompetence and malfeasance. With two such completely corrupt parties, it's time to start over. It can't come soon enough. Then perhaps the true interest of the country symbolizes will be prioritized.
1
The hacking in both instances didn't amount to much. The people didn't want Clinton or Le Pen.
2
The playbook of Big Media is so transparent to some people such as Trump and the Russian hackers, yet so opaque to others like the Clinton campaign. Go figure.
Part of the problem is all of our news coverage today is sensationalized; nothing is put into perspective. If you’re old enough, picture Walter Cronkite reading the news. Then contrast this with today’s network newscasters, where every story is read with the same breathless tone they would use to report a tornado bearing down on your city. There is no boring news, no, “Well this isn’t very exciting, but it happened today and it’s important, and so we need to mention it.” That kind of stuff doesn’t even make the news, in favor of TMZ-like things and glorified cat videos. So during the election when the hacked e-mails and the Hillary things hit, the news outlets viewed this as an opportunity for a sensational story, and this instinct overrode their sense of perspective.
Plus maybe one more thing. During the election the media was consumed reporting all the over-the-top disclosures about Trump, and I wonder if when what seemed to be at least a little bad news about the Democrats came out they felt they had to make an unwarranted big deal out of it out of some weird sense of fairness.
Plus maybe one more thing. During the election the media was consumed reporting all the over-the-top disclosures about Trump, and I wonder if when what seemed to be at least a little bad news about the Democrats came out they felt they had to make an unwarranted big deal out of it out of some weird sense of fairness.
3
Comey fired. By Trump. Sessions told him to.
1
Its probably easier to stay away and claim journalistic integrity when the hack happens one day before the election. If this were a couple months before the election, you know there's no way every media outlet stays quiet when the first ones to break the integrity pact get to reap the ratings... for weeks. business gonna business
2
No, the media's biggest fault, though it was no mistake from their craven point of view, was free air time and shameless promotion of one Donald Trump. It started before the GOP primaries and continued right up to the election day. He was catnip for the men (and it is almost all men) in the network corner offices. Some have, without any shame I can discern, admitted they did it for ratings and revenue. So much for their vaunted journalistic standards.
Giving airtime and prominence to the e-mails of Sec. Clinton was small change, by comparison.
Giving airtime and prominence to the e-mails of Sec. Clinton was small change, by comparison.
5
Punching Hillary Clinton was the great blood sport of the election. Everyone loved to participate, even the press. Certainly one of the great sins of America. Misogyny reached towering heights. It was so blatant it sent this old white guy screaming around his living room.
The Russians were brilliant. All they did was add more fuel to the fire that was already in full blaze. It is the reason Republicans will block investigations into trump. They are shining a mirror on themselves.
I am glad the French have more sense than us. Hopefully they along with Germany can take over democratic leadership in the world. America has left the job open.
The Russians were brilliant. All they did was add more fuel to the fire that was already in full blaze. It is the reason Republicans will block investigations into trump. They are shining a mirror on themselves.
I am glad the French have more sense than us. Hopefully they along with Germany can take over democratic leadership in the world. America has left the job open.
11
We apparently need better educated people in the media to be able to decipher real stories. We also need people in the media who are not afraid to report real news, even when a more sensational story that brings better advertising dollars is in front of them.
2
What I wonder is why the responsible press needs to echo the far-right drone machine at all...why Murdoch etc. often set the agenda/direction of focus when it comes to which issues are to become to become highly emphasized? Why the so-called president's tweets aren't relegated to the back page of the sports section given that they are often blatant propaganda ploys or lies?
It was criminal of the press that BY FAR the biggest story in the weeks prior to the election was Clinton's emails instead of Trump's relations with and hacking encouragement of Russia: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jul/27/donald-trump-russi...
It was criminal of the press that BY FAR the biggest story in the weeks prior to the election was Clinton's emails instead of Trump's relations with and hacking encouragement of Russia: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jul/27/donald-trump-russi...
4
The French hacking scandal has not yet played out. It was suppressed for a couple of days, but it may well be back.
There is the open question of who did it. There were assumptions, taken as fact but not supported by any evidence. In the nature of things, we can anticipate some surprises there, but not yet what they will be.
There is also the question of matters that were revealed. It was not all harmless. If the purported copies of document are real, then the new President when he was Minister of the Economy set up a tax evasion account in the Cayman Islands. That story is either fake news, or it will have legs.
There is also the timing. It was too late. Why? There is a story there too.
There will be more about this. Americans may not care now, but French will care in time.
There is the open question of who did it. There were assumptions, taken as fact but not supported by any evidence. In the nature of things, we can anticipate some surprises there, but not yet what they will be.
There is also the question of matters that were revealed. It was not all harmless. If the purported copies of document are real, then the new President when he was Minister of the Economy set up a tax evasion account in the Cayman Islands. That story is either fake news, or it will have legs.
There is also the timing. It was too late. Why? There is a story there too.
There will be more about this. Americans may not care now, but French will care in time.
"and conducting a more hawkish foreign policy than Obama"
Were you good with that? Did you speak up then?
Did American voters support that, or only insider hawks who were donors?
There was much that was not discussed, when emails were discussed instead. However they did not all favor Hillary. Trade agreements is another example of not favoring Hillary.
Does this suggest that the press should have given her a pass on all that too?
It does not admit that the press DID give her a pass on all that too.
The price of focus on emails had a number of consequences, and not all of the alternative focus would have favored Hillary either.
Were you good with that? Did you speak up then?
Did American voters support that, or only insider hawks who were donors?
There was much that was not discussed, when emails were discussed instead. However they did not all favor Hillary. Trade agreements is another example of not favoring Hillary.
Does this suggest that the press should have given her a pass on all that too?
It does not admit that the press DID give her a pass on all that too.
The price of focus on emails had a number of consequences, and not all of the alternative focus would have favored Hillary either.
2
Another lesson. The French press is completely transparent. The left-wing media (and some of them refused to carry La Pen's speeches or provide any coverage of her) and right-wing media are explicit in their views. In the US, the so-called objective mainstream papers are not. For instance, the NYT and CNN were pro-Clinton to the extreme, yet passed themselves off as objective journalists and news.
Regarding Hilary's e-mails - wherever did you get the impression that they were significant? I suspect from people who are looking for any external reason for her defeat. She lost because of bad ethics (the Clinton Foundation), poor policies (the black, women and Muslim cards) and her open-borders immigration policies. Adding to this, no empathy with those Americans who have been hurt by globalization or unilateral environmental policies ("deplorables"). This article is part of the problem of the American press.
Regarding Hilary's e-mails - wherever did you get the impression that they were significant? I suspect from people who are looking for any external reason for her defeat. She lost because of bad ethics (the Clinton Foundation), poor policies (the black, women and Muslim cards) and her open-borders immigration policies. Adding to this, no empathy with those Americans who have been hurt by globalization or unilateral environmental policies ("deplorables"). This article is part of the problem of the American press.
2
Why did the French media not hype the Macron emails to try to smear him? Because they don't have Fox News (yet). Just wait until Fox opens its pop-propaganda mill to try to steer French politics as it does in the UK and USA.
3
Or we may as well admit we are in a cold war between two competing versions of what America is. No room for pussyfooting or "balance." Which side are you on?
1
No mention of the disparity in policy issue coverage? 8% of total coverage according to the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Maybe there's a lesson in the rejection of Le Pen inasmuch as the French actually knew what she and her opponent were proposing.
2
Never will happen.
France has a lot of state owned media - especially television.
Therefore, eyeballs and clicks are not the only considerations for leadership.
Here it is all about dollars. The way you get dollars is through clickbait and sensational stories because advertisers want the biggest audience possible. The bigger the audience, the bigger the payday.
To expect leadership to overcome a system that has built in incentives encouraging them to do the opposite because it is the right thing to do is childish. This is the difference between the way the world should work and the way it does work.
In a political climate in which the president and the GOP are promising to defund the small, limited and cheap PBS, I think delving into any sort of thoughtful regulation like the former "Equal Time Act" is fantasy.
Result? Don't expect things to change until much, much more damage is done by Fox News.
France has a lot of state owned media - especially television.
Therefore, eyeballs and clicks are not the only considerations for leadership.
Here it is all about dollars. The way you get dollars is through clickbait and sensational stories because advertisers want the biggest audience possible. The bigger the audience, the bigger the payday.
To expect leadership to overcome a system that has built in incentives encouraging them to do the opposite because it is the right thing to do is childish. This is the difference between the way the world should work and the way it does work.
In a political climate in which the president and the GOP are promising to defund the small, limited and cheap PBS, I think delving into any sort of thoughtful regulation like the former "Equal Time Act" is fantasy.
Result? Don't expect things to change until much, much more damage is done by Fox News.
1
I suppose Mr. Leonhardt's lesson here is that the press should suppress new information that is potentially harmful to its preferred candidate. Of course, if he believes that the press should have suppressed similar information about Le Pen or Trump then I take that back, but I still do not agree. One good thing about the US (and there are many) is that there are many sources of news, including those with contrarian viewpoints, and it can be a mad scramble to get the story first and, whether NYT, CNN or Brietbart, put your own spin on it. In any event, I want the information, with as much context as possible, so I can make up my own mind. I don't need the press making that decision for me, thanks.
1
This is a very inappropriate comparison. Who is Macron? Until very recently few people outside of France ever heard of him. Even in France he was anything but a minor figure on the fringe. How can any one compare his e-mail with that of Hillary Clinton while she was the Secretary of the State here in the US. Macron's e-mail is his private business and it is totally appropriate that the media left it alone. But Clinton mingled her private business with her official business against the regulation and there is no reason that it should be shielded from public scrutiny.
1
Thank you Mr Leonhardt and The New York Times for your journalistic integrity and objectivity. I still reside in Chicago and recall the days of having 4 papers to read and compare stories and viewpoints. I subscribe to your print media because there is something permanent about turns pages and pausing to think about what you read. To re-read a story days later with additional insight is invaluable. As "tv news" becomes more one sided and scary in tone with a little feel good sugar every now and then it is good to sit and get the bigger picture from journalists. The "anchors" on the local tv news playing in the background are joking about what they do while the weather report is on. Seriously, that is what you want your audience to consider most important. How can I trust your journalistic integrity to be beacons for the truth?
Yes, this is exactly right. The hyper-competitive nature of journalism today requires that every story be a big story, every leak a major breach of trust. I say this having spent my entire career in journalism, but the breathless reportage we get today does a lot of harm to our credibility. It played a big part in Trump's election. Once, state primaries were inside page stories. Now, every nuance of a campaign becomes fodder for a scoop, a scoop that usually ends up meaning nothing. People get over-loaded by this kind of hysterical coverage, they tune out, or they start disbelieving everything they read. It's no longer good enough to say, Well, we are just putting it out there. It's for you to decide if it's important. I'd like to see more restraint, but with the rise and hegemony of Fox News I am not optimistic.
3
It was a story - a story about how lagging our government is in high tech infrastructure and security. It's a story about how a very busy Secretary of State who was uncomfortable with new technology and her staff got pinned with the responsibility of implementing and supporting the IT infrastructure, and how they made some mistakes. The MSM mostly did not report that story.
But THE BIG story that they did not report, ignored completely, was about the alternate reality being created by Republicans and their friends in the right wing media. It probably didn't matter what emphasis the MSM placed, because their legitimacy was already suspect/ignored by Trump voters. The MSMs refusal to go after the right wing media left politicians to look partisan or like bad sports for criticizing them.
Does French have a counterpart to Fox/Murdoch?
But THE BIG story that they did not report, ignored completely, was about the alternate reality being created by Republicans and their friends in the right wing media. It probably didn't matter what emphasis the MSM placed, because their legitimacy was already suspect/ignored by Trump voters. The MSMs refusal to go after the right wing media left politicians to look partisan or like bad sports for criticizing them.
Does French have a counterpart to Fox/Murdoch?
6
This is what I love about the NYT comment section and hate about the new America. David Leonhardt has thrown out a topic about the media and, in this thread, we have discussed every possible link, causation and effect of today's media environment. On the other hand, the President of the United States of America needs only type "Fake News" and millions cheer. Two words, four letters each, no meaning, no context, no weight, just two words and millions cheer. We can argue over what tripped up Hillary or what the populist movement is really about but one thing keeps coming back over and over again.There is more brainpower in the NYT comment section then in all of the Executive Branch. Oh, and we're all doomed because of it.
17
Always overlooked is how the GOP has perverted our government by turning Congressional investigations into partisan political hit squads. Republicans staged 8 investigations into the Benghazi attacks, continuing long after the facts were well-established. Rep. Kevin McCarthy admitted the goal of the hearings was to damage Hillary Clinton. During the process, committee members leaked misleading information, again meant solely to damage Clinton not to inform the public. The multiple 1990s Whitewater investigations followed the same pattern.
The media — including the Times — enables these outrageous abuses of Congressional power by participating in the fiction that the investigations are good-faith efforts at finding the truth. They are not. This becomes obvious when considering that federal email and information security practices are suddenly not a concern of Congressional Republicans or the national media. Though Pres. Trump and members of his administration have behaved much more irresponsibly than Clinton ever did, suddenly nobody cares. Weird! In the future, rather than repeating unproven accusations that create an unshakable aura of scandal, journalists need to find ways to contextualize and convey the clear fact that the news itself is being manipulated by politicians misusing their public positions. Editors need to exercise better judgment when deciding what is a truly significant story; part of this includes assessing the goals and motivations of all political actors.
The media — including the Times — enables these outrageous abuses of Congressional power by participating in the fiction that the investigations are good-faith efforts at finding the truth. They are not. This becomes obvious when considering that federal email and information security practices are suddenly not a concern of Congressional Republicans or the national media. Though Pres. Trump and members of his administration have behaved much more irresponsibly than Clinton ever did, suddenly nobody cares. Weird! In the future, rather than repeating unproven accusations that create an unshakable aura of scandal, journalists need to find ways to contextualize and convey the clear fact that the news itself is being manipulated by politicians misusing their public positions. Editors need to exercise better judgment when deciding what is a truly significant story; part of this includes assessing the goals and motivations of all political actors.
16
If we are going to take a look at the news media in the recent presidential election, then we need to go back much further than the Russian hacking scandal. The news coverage was skewed as far back as the primaries, both the Republican and the Democratic primaries. The debates were badly monitored by various members of the media. The coverage of the candidates, even during the primaries, was inconsistent and slanted.
So, if we are going to have a debrief and assessment of the media in that election cycle it needs to be thorough, even-handed and honest. Somehow, I have difficulty imagining the media accomplishing that, but without that assessment I fear for the maintenance of democracy in this country.
Please prove me wrong!
You cited Thomas Jefferson in your opinion piece Mr. Leonhardt. He said, “Our liberty, cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press,
nor that be limited without danger of losing it.” Freedom of the press comes through our constitution, but it also come from within the press itself, within the news media in every guise. The coverage of the recent campaigns was limited. It was limited by the very news media themselves.
So, if we are going to have a debrief and assessment of the media in that election cycle it needs to be thorough, even-handed and honest. Somehow, I have difficulty imagining the media accomplishing that, but without that assessment I fear for the maintenance of democracy in this country.
Please prove me wrong!
You cited Thomas Jefferson in your opinion piece Mr. Leonhardt. He said, “Our liberty, cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press,
nor that be limited without danger of losing it.” Freedom of the press comes through our constitution, but it also come from within the press itself, within the news media in every guise. The coverage of the recent campaigns was limited. It was limited by the very news media themselves.
7
Many of the comments below also reveal a big difference between Macron and Clinton: misogyny didn't affect the judgment of Macron
6
I would be very happy if we could shorten our political calendar so that the election of the president was not a 2-year, way too expensive and overblown process. I love that the primary election in France is followed just 2 weeks later by the final election. Far less time to listen to the same old exaggerated stories over and over and over. Our process is way too long and the amount of money spent on it is shameful. The French are far from perfect, but I sure like how they do elections! And journalism!
6
nancy.., it interests me how often americans have to qualify a comment that might be construed as negative about their country.
the piece isn't about france being far from perfect, but about how they handled a situation with parallels to what happened in last year's presidential election.
you didn't say the usa is the greatest country in the history of the world, but.....seems odd you had to say french are far from perfect.
their health care system is also superior to the usa tho it might be far from perfect.
the piece isn't about france being far from perfect, but about how they handled a situation with parallels to what happened in last year's presidential election.
you didn't say the usa is the greatest country in the history of the world, but.....seems odd you had to say french are far from perfect.
their health care system is also superior to the usa tho it might be far from perfect.
1
What happened was predicted (long before it happened) nicely by Paul Krugman and coined 'the Goring' of Clinton. A predicted phenomenon cannot be called a mistake, especially since the media at the same time let Comey get away with the direct interference in the election process.
5
While there are a lot of lessons the US media needs to learn and put into practice, Hillary Clinton lost because of her incompetence. Sorry to those folks who get hurt by this assertion, but the facts are very very clear.
ANY candidate running in 2016 on either side should have been able to defeat Mr. Trump by 20 points, if not the spectacular job Mr. Macron did. Think about it - Marine Le Pen has been around in French politics a lot longer than Trump. Trump was not directly in politics, he was just a professional heckler. Yet the 16 Republicans and the one Democrat were no match for his vapid rhetoric! Why?
Hillary was a flawed candidate and Trump and his surrogates kept hitting her hard and vulgarly at her established weaknesses. Hillary should have protected those vulnerabilities, and instead was evasive and frustrated her own supporters with her obstinacy (remember the comments from Neera Tandon et al?) And worse, she did not hit Trump on his vulnerabilities, instead making a narrow calculation about persuading women and Latinos to get her a majority with the Venezuelan Miss Universe nonsense. Trump's real vulnerabilities lie in his constant lying and switching stances. All she and her surrogates had to do was ask, "Which Donald Trump are we going to see today?" and it would have stuck.
But the single, most egregious C R I M E of Hillary Clinton - not owning the Obama legacy - "Hey folks, do you remember October 2008? Do you want a 3rd Bush term or a 3rd Obama term?"
ANY candidate running in 2016 on either side should have been able to defeat Mr. Trump by 20 points, if not the spectacular job Mr. Macron did. Think about it - Marine Le Pen has been around in French politics a lot longer than Trump. Trump was not directly in politics, he was just a professional heckler. Yet the 16 Republicans and the one Democrat were no match for his vapid rhetoric! Why?
Hillary was a flawed candidate and Trump and his surrogates kept hitting her hard and vulgarly at her established weaknesses. Hillary should have protected those vulnerabilities, and instead was evasive and frustrated her own supporters with her obstinacy (remember the comments from Neera Tandon et al?) And worse, she did not hit Trump on his vulnerabilities, instead making a narrow calculation about persuading women and Latinos to get her a majority with the Venezuelan Miss Universe nonsense. Trump's real vulnerabilities lie in his constant lying and switching stances. All she and her surrogates had to do was ask, "Which Donald Trump are we going to see today?" and it would have stuck.
But the single, most egregious C R I M E of Hillary Clinton - not owning the Obama legacy - "Hey folks, do you remember October 2008? Do you want a 3rd Bush term or a 3rd Obama term?"
5
Isn't this exactly the reason the Times has been so harshly criticized in recent days? I hope Mr. Leonhardt was looking in the mirror as he wrote this column.
2
There are major differences between the Macron email hack and the Hillary email hack.
Hillary has been in the public eye for decades. The setup of an illegal private email server in her basement served to confirm her penchant for secrecy, stone walling and lying. The email sever was meant to circumvent government scrutiny of her influence peddling. A review of her Secretary of State log showed that over 50% of people who sought an audience with her contributed to the Clinton Foundation (per NYT). The American press was right to jump on this issue and this among other disasters lead her to have an honesty rating of 19%. The NYT was out front publishing every lead from the DNC hack to Podesta hack. We can argue whether it made for great journalism, but undoubtedly if enriched the NYT corporation.
The Macron leak showed just how boring and mundane Mr. Macron is. The most exciting thing is that his wife is 25 years older. I think the French would have appreciated him more if the hack had found he had some affairs on the side. The French had a 48 hour news blackout at the very end. Can you imagine this in US. Every media outlet would self righteously be screaming, "public right to know", censorship, first amendment....etc.
Hillary has been in the public eye for decades. The setup of an illegal private email server in her basement served to confirm her penchant for secrecy, stone walling and lying. The email sever was meant to circumvent government scrutiny of her influence peddling. A review of her Secretary of State log showed that over 50% of people who sought an audience with her contributed to the Clinton Foundation (per NYT). The American press was right to jump on this issue and this among other disasters lead her to have an honesty rating of 19%. The NYT was out front publishing every lead from the DNC hack to Podesta hack. We can argue whether it made for great journalism, but undoubtedly if enriched the NYT corporation.
The Macron leak showed just how boring and mundane Mr. Macron is. The most exciting thing is that his wife is 25 years older. I think the French would have appreciated him more if the hack had found he had some affairs on the side. The French had a 48 hour news blackout at the very end. Can you imagine this in US. Every media outlet would self righteously be screaming, "public right to know", censorship, first amendment....etc.
5
The embarassment lurking under some of the rightish commenters may point partly to the fact that the French have now repaid a historical debt. We once helped to save the world from the Nazis, the French have now done the same.
2
The French have rejected the extreme right wing, while the US has elected it. The French candidates don't even dispute their universal health care, while the rw party the US elected aims to destroy what ACA has managed to achieve.
Thus the latest Andy Borowitz satire is so, so apropos, and funny. We need a good laugh, even if a bitter one.
“FRENCH ANNOYINGLY RETAIN RIGHT TO CLAIM INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY OVER AMERICANS” says Borowitz:
“The people of France annoyingly retained their traditional right to claim intellectual superiority over Americans, as millions of French citizens paused to enjoy just how much smarter they were than their allies across the Atlantic.
One “ toasted his nation “for not being so dumb as the United States after all.”
Another said, “We are smarter than the Americans, true, but they have set the bar very low, no?”
Oui. Quel dommage.
Thus the latest Andy Borowitz satire is so, so apropos, and funny. We need a good laugh, even if a bitter one.
“FRENCH ANNOYINGLY RETAIN RIGHT TO CLAIM INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY OVER AMERICANS” says Borowitz:
“The people of France annoyingly retained their traditional right to claim intellectual superiority over Americans, as millions of French citizens paused to enjoy just how much smarter they were than their allies across the Atlantic.
One “ toasted his nation “for not being so dumb as the United States after all.”
Another said, “We are smarter than the Americans, true, but they have set the bar very low, no?”
Oui. Quel dommage.
10
Until the media of all types stops putting profit at any cost above quality, harping on the same topics over and over and over again, ad nauseum, then nothing will change. People will grab for the soundbite, the "clever" nicknames that candidates like Trump did and still does, and focus on the mundane as a mountain rather than a molehill.
1
Sheila makes a persuasive case for the deterioration of the media by the profit motive, and it's tempting to see the coverage of the presidential election cycle through that lens, as I often do. What bothers me, though, is that there has always been a business aspect to newspapers. (I guess at one point people circulated privately-published broadsides that were probably lucky to cover costs, but most political information or advocacy came from newspapers, which, if San Simeon is any indication, was a lucrative business in its heyday.) Newspapers through much of our history took jaringly strong positions on the issues and political figures of the time, and I don't think even Jackson, Buchanan, or stroke-addled Wilson approached the level of Trump. (As repugnant as Jackson's treatment of the Indians was by modern standards, it was closer to Washington and his slaves than to Trump and Mexicans, Muslims, and, depending on the day, China).
Maybe partisan cable news has a more powerful effect on the psyche than the printed word can command, but to me that conclusion isn't obvious. I think it may have more to do with the inability of many Americans to think rationally when they're insecure and frightened and all their friends are in the same frame of mind.
For me, though, I salve my wounds by watching episodes of The West Wing on Netflix and reading George Will columns. I'm dying to say to him, "If you didn't want to go to Minneapolis, then why did you get on the train!?"
Maybe partisan cable news has a more powerful effect on the psyche than the printed word can command, but to me that conclusion isn't obvious. I think it may have more to do with the inability of many Americans to think rationally when they're insecure and frightened and all their friends are in the same frame of mind.
For me, though, I salve my wounds by watching episodes of The West Wing on Netflix and reading George Will columns. I'm dying to say to him, "If you didn't want to go to Minneapolis, then why did you get on the train!?"
1
So the emails on Hillary's campaign were so ordinary that they meant nothing.
But the alleged intervention of the Russians into our election by leaking those emails was a devastating blow to our democracy.
Sounds like there's a little confusion at Spin Central.
But the alleged intervention of the Russians into our election by leaking those emails was a devastating blow to our democracy.
Sounds like there's a little confusion at Spin Central.
So the media should withhold news that reporters fear may influence voters to vote contrary to the reporters' preference? Well sign me up for a paid digital subscription to that world!
4
I very much agree with the conclusions of David Leonhardt. But French media have always been different. Just one example: President Mitterands "second" wife. It was an open secret among journalists that Mitterand had a relationship (and even a daughter) besides his official family. But nobody ever published anything about this relationship. Only after President Mitterand passed away some articles were written about this "secret". French journalists have a different way of working. And I think Moscow or whoever was behind the leak miscalculated the effect the leak would have. France is different, and the French media are different. I was not astonished that all French media accepted to play the game and to not publish the substance of the stolen emails. This is not new, this way of acting has a long tradition in France.
1
I don't understand why people consider that we have too much information. If it weren't for all of that information we would not have been exposed to the self-serving corruption of conservatism. Always was and always will be. But now it is right there for us all to look at.
We had all been seduced by the success of liberal progressivism to update the desire for equality before the law for all minorities. It's not done and liberal progressivism is susceptible to neoliberal attitudes.
But it is all out there, everywhere, all the time. The current results are a big price to pay but worth paying.
We had all been seduced by the success of liberal progressivism to update the desire for equality before the law for all minorities. It's not done and liberal progressivism is susceptible to neoliberal attitudes.
But it is all out there, everywhere, all the time. The current results are a big price to pay but worth paying.
Not for millions who are going to lose their health care they aren't!
You know, ancient Athens had free speech too, but the very wealthy understood that part of the "price" for that was that they must generously provide for the welfare of the less fortunate. It was also a price they paid to avoid revolution.
You know, ancient Athens had free speech too, but the very wealthy understood that part of the "price" for that was that they must generously provide for the welfare of the less fortunate. It was also a price they paid to avoid revolution.
1
It seems clear that French citizens overwhelmingly accept that evidence based rational discourse should underpin political decisions. May their belief live long and prosper.
4
Our sensationalism chasing press/media bears heavy blame for the 2016
USA election outcome. Profiteering over truth & patriotism ultimately LOSES.
USA election outcome. Profiteering over truth & patriotism ultimately LOSES.
4
Yes, the US media must open itself to reflection and examination of how it does far more to manipulate opinion than to honestly inform. For example, had the MSM, and the NYT in particular, covered Bernie Sanders with the same level of zeal and favoritism that it did Hillary, we might not have a Trump Presidency. They all but anointed Mrs. Clinton as soon as the 2016 election cycle kicked off, and virtually ignored Bernie until he proved his appeal in the primaries, and then, begrudgingly threw some coverage his way. Meanwhile, they were providing free coverage of every Trump utterance...it's a wonder that his campaign had to spend ANY media dollars.
As for the Clinton email server controversy, had this been covered as the serious breach of security and law that it was, instead of constantly being downplayed by Clinton and her MSM mouthpieces, she might have been forced to drop out in favor of better candidates, particularly Sanders, and again, Trump would not be President.
There is much validity to the charge that the media is slanted and corrupt, and long past time for it to investigate itself.
As for the Clinton email server controversy, had this been covered as the serious breach of security and law that it was, instead of constantly being downplayed by Clinton and her MSM mouthpieces, she might have been forced to drop out in favor of better candidates, particularly Sanders, and again, Trump would not be President.
There is much validity to the charge that the media is slanted and corrupt, and long past time for it to investigate itself.
4
There are lots of printed words about Hillary's emails and the effect on the outcome of the presidential race. There are many who wanted to lock her up. Fast forward to today and Trump. What he is doing is considerably more dangerous to the American people and some in his team may be locked up.
There is so much press about Trump and all the negative things he is doing that maybe we've become immune to this news and are beginning to take it as normal. And because we are becoming immune, perhaps the press and America lets him get away with so much more. Stay vigilant in your work, New York Times journalists. We need you now more than ever.
There is so much press about Trump and all the negative things he is doing that maybe we've become immune to this news and are beginning to take it as normal. And because we are becoming immune, perhaps the press and America lets him get away with so much more. Stay vigilant in your work, New York Times journalists. We need you now more than ever.
Macron didn't have a Bernie from his own party beating him over the head everyday and a Jill Stein on the ballot. One on One - the centrist crushed the facist. Could have happened here as well.
One only hope that American hubris somehow survives the nemesis of Donald Trump.
Could not agree any better, from CNN to RNC & finally to FBI everyone provided such press coverage to 45th POTUS to the extent he went about his campaign that he never paid anyone but friends offered the venues & press gladly provided coverage. Meanwhile GOP & RNC & CNN could not STOP showing the mud slinging of our former First Lady & towards the end literally dragging in one of our most successful POTUS into the picture at debates . Well I can go on endlessly here.
Well now CNN & everybody waking up to taunts "fake Media ", Trump tower was wired and such . Can everybody wake up and say all that is going on is a diversion for the press & they can start reporting real NEWS . Come show in detail what Mr. McCain has to say & what the rest of the world is saying .
Well now CNN & everybody waking up to taunts "fake Media ", Trump tower was wired and such . Can everybody wake up and say all that is going on is a diversion for the press & they can start reporting real NEWS . Come show in detail what Mr. McCain has to say & what the rest of the world is saying .
The right wing owned "press" has cooperated for decades in the character assassination of H Clinton.
Never was the tilt in balance so clear and never was the job required of a real press done so poorly.
First thing that totalitarians do is grab control of communications for propaganda. The GOP was having no more Nixon's due to a free and open press. Can you even imagine the Washington post approving the story now?
Never was the tilt in balance so clear and never was the job required of a real press done so poorly.
First thing that totalitarians do is grab control of communications for propaganda. The GOP was having no more Nixon's due to a free and open press. Can you even imagine the Washington post approving the story now?
1
Oh, please. The Clinton/DNC emails revealed a candidate who played outside the rules applying to everyone else and a major political party resting both thumbs on the scales. It was revelatory in the sense that we thought we ought to be able to trust our Secretaries of State to safeguard national security and political parties to play by the rules they establish for themselves. The Democrats put forth a bloody awful candidate and ran a terrible campaign. When the best you've got going is 'Not as bad as THAT guy!' as your raison d'etre, you deserve to lose, even when the opposition is as odious as Donald J. Trump. The Democratic national Party is going nowhere in a hurry as it keeps recycling stale, never-were-true excuses. Man up and take the blame for what you've done to the country, Leonhardt.
4
But she REALLY WAS not as bad as 'that guy'. This is the point that people like you don't understand. Take a look around and see what is happening to this country!
(and why are you blaming Leonhardt?)
(and why are you blaming Leonhardt?)
1
Yesterday's article ..if Bland, Voice startled me for I heard Macron speak the night before at the Louvre and he was full of enthusiasm, love, kindness, to all including his opponent. He was so honest and true, I fell in love. Here was a man who inspired you to want to join his unifying nationalistic team. Bland? Hardly. Meanness was no where to be found. Viva la France.
A few hours later I heard President Obama accept the Profile in Courage award.
Another example of honesty, kindness and goodness. It's a pleasure to be reminded by really nice men.
A few hours later I heard President Obama accept the Profile in Courage award.
Another example of honesty, kindness and goodness. It's a pleasure to be reminded by really nice men.
1
I do not recall the media spending a great deal of coverage on the hacked podesta emails in the subsequent 48 hours --since it seems live everyone was focused on the access Hollywood tape. And I do not recall contemporaneous accounts of the hacked emails being considered a significant issue, except in retrospect. I think this is a bit silly.
1
First time I have seen any member of the media admit their culpability in electing Trump. Too little and too late.
Hillary blames herself alone apart from the leak. But they are inter-related. Hiring Huma Abden, the closest person to her daily life, who is a member of the (anti-Muslim) Brotherhood terrorist organization professioned in espionage, may have the largest share in her blame. Well known that Huma Abden sent to her husband emails containing classified matter, among the leaked documents, whatever the cause is, proving the intent of Huma. But I believe that Huma herself has a role in the leak process based on the nature of Brotherhood mysterious activities. That explains Clinton's self blaming.
The American press was not too honest and objective in displaying the problem. The hunger for excitement overcomed conducting truth, may be by virtue of capitalism, in addition to being lean to one side or the other that has a scratch effect on truth. Fox news is an example. So, we have two main factors affecting the function of the press, money and politics, on the expense of truth. Someone claims that this leads to putting politics in front of America. Sure, that is a science by itself.
America needs more trusted media, not a partisan version, or in addition to. France media was not really tested on the leaks as was the American press because of the blackout.
The American press was not too honest and objective in displaying the problem. The hunger for excitement overcomed conducting truth, may be by virtue of capitalism, in addition to being lean to one side or the other that has a scratch effect on truth. Fox news is an example. So, we have two main factors affecting the function of the press, money and politics, on the expense of truth. Someone claims that this leads to putting politics in front of America. Sure, that is a science by itself.
America needs more trusted media, not a partisan version, or in addition to. France media was not really tested on the leaks as was the American press because of the blackout.
1
Any information revalatory of the basic integrity of a political candidate, no matter how obtained, is germane to voters, and therefore should be covered by the press.
2
The extent of Russian interference in our election is becoming better understood. The Intelligence Community agrees that Russia employed "active measures", e.g., hacking, using the internet and social media to plant false or half-true stories, to amplify opposition, etc., with the intention of harming one candidate.
One need only read the comments to understand the effectiveness of the disinformation aspect. We all know, or think we know, about the skullduggery of the DNC. But we know nothing about the skullduggery of the RNC. We all know that Donna Brasile fed one question to Clinton, but not that, according to Megan Kelly, Fox fed Trump questions.
The news media became an unwitting participant in these active measures.
The Intelligence Community knows Russia will interfere again.
What actions can the media take to avoid being the unwitting dupes again?
Hey, NY Times, you are either part of the solution or you are a part of the problem.
One need only read the comments to understand the effectiveness of the disinformation aspect. We all know, or think we know, about the skullduggery of the DNC. But we know nothing about the skullduggery of the RNC. We all know that Donna Brasile fed one question to Clinton, but not that, according to Megan Kelly, Fox fed Trump questions.
The news media became an unwitting participant in these active measures.
The Intelligence Community knows Russia will interfere again.
What actions can the media take to avoid being the unwitting dupes again?
Hey, NY Times, you are either part of the solution or you are a part of the problem.
1
My complaint is that the media treated the hacked emails as truth, without confirmation, even though Russians are known to alter info and insert damaging, untrue info (called disinformation, a spy tactic). To my knowledge, no one confirmed that individual emails were true.
4
The American Revolution was a model for the French revolution. We got rid of our colonial royal rulers, and then the French overthrew their royal regime.
Now in the 21st century, Americans must take back our country from the super rich, the elites, and the corporations that call the shots in our politics. They are like a new aristocracy dominating our 3 branches, setting the parameters for our lawmaking, with both Gop and Dem administrations.
Through legal means we must liberate the country from Tsar Trump the Terrible and his courtiers.
Using a French model---change our election policies that transfer power to the 1 percent. Use public funding, limits on private donations, shorten campaigns, use free media time for all candidates to get their platform to across to us and ban campaing ads flooding the media, paid for by billionaires.
The super rich invest in our elections for excellent returns. The citizen majority can't hope to compete in order to get the representation we need.
En Marche, America!
Now in the 21st century, Americans must take back our country from the super rich, the elites, and the corporations that call the shots in our politics. They are like a new aristocracy dominating our 3 branches, setting the parameters for our lawmaking, with both Gop and Dem administrations.
Through legal means we must liberate the country from Tsar Trump the Terrible and his courtiers.
Using a French model---change our election policies that transfer power to the 1 percent. Use public funding, limits on private donations, shorten campaigns, use free media time for all candidates to get their platform to across to us and ban campaing ads flooding the media, paid for by billionaires.
The super rich invest in our elections for excellent returns. The citizen majority can't hope to compete in order to get the representation we need.
En Marche, America!
2
Study American news reporting history and you will see that the primary focus has been and continues to be making money, except for a few. Unfortunately, most of the current news systems have management which sees the bottom-line being far more important than providing real and accurate news. If most in the US press had never been so far off from being accurate and not hyping up their presentations then maybe we would have had a chance to never allow the Putin machines to control our beliefs. They could do this because poor reporting was acceptable to most Americans due primarily to the fact that we had not focused on sustaining a proper education system where Hollywood approaches to reporting would simply have remained as entertainment and never have been seen as real news.
1
For many years, Republicans have pushed the 'Liberal media' meme: they were getting unfair coverage (maybe reporting the truth was just too painful), their viewpoint was under-represented, etc.
Along came Rupert Murdoch who, sensing an opportunity to cash in on an undeveloped market, created Fox (Entertainment) News to cater to the right-wing mentality. But he did so much more than that-he actually trained Fox viewers to think the way Fox broadcasts, the way they tell their story and the stories they select to tell.
Now we're one generation into the process and they younger viewers don't remember any other way. Fox is the news and that's that. By controlling the news input (and therefore the 'thinking') of a large portion of the public, Fox can exert an outsized impact on lots of things, from selling Mercedes autos to influencing elections. If Fox wants to broadcast day and night about Hillary's emails, the other networks had better keep up, or they'll be left behind. Fox has gone from reporting the news to creating the news; that's the essence of it's power.
This kind of influence is not so much present in countries like France, where the media is not so dominant. Maybe the French read books, or something, who knows?
Along came Rupert Murdoch who, sensing an opportunity to cash in on an undeveloped market, created Fox (Entertainment) News to cater to the right-wing mentality. But he did so much more than that-he actually trained Fox viewers to think the way Fox broadcasts, the way they tell their story and the stories they select to tell.
Now we're one generation into the process and they younger viewers don't remember any other way. Fox is the news and that's that. By controlling the news input (and therefore the 'thinking') of a large portion of the public, Fox can exert an outsized impact on lots of things, from selling Mercedes autos to influencing elections. If Fox wants to broadcast day and night about Hillary's emails, the other networks had better keep up, or they'll be left behind. Fox has gone from reporting the news to creating the news; that's the essence of it's power.
This kind of influence is not so much present in countries like France, where the media is not so dominant. Maybe the French read books, or something, who knows?
4
I've said it for years; 24/7 cable news is the worst thing to ever hit this country. It enriches the corporate media at the expense of our Republic.
2
Not only the worst mistake, but the worse hundred mistakes--repeated every day over and over, while real damage was done to voters' clarity on the issues and real lies were believed, and the integrity of our country--modest or robust as it may have been--so diminished now, with a party in charge that seems to be just fine with that.
2
The major problem is that the American Media much more so than the French is part of the Entertainment not the measured proportional Information Media.
2
Quelle surprise that the French media displayed professional journalism while the US media displayed the full Monty in it's quest for click bait. True the French have a deeply embedded distrust of Le Pen and the National Front due to it's ties to the much reviled treasonous Vichy Regime, and for good reason. The vitriol and visceral hatred of Clinton from the right is another matter entirely. Decades of innuendo and propaganda, not historical fact, have fuelled the vitriol of the orange one's and GOP's campaigns.
4
The "scoop" mentality still operates in journalism powerfully. If you appear to be hiding something and details can be wormed out of various sources, it is a continuing story. If you do something in public without shame or apology, the story goes away in a day or two. One example is Trump calling on the Russians to hack the rest of Hillary Clinton's emails. This was an open invitation to a foreign government to interfere in our elections, but where's the outrage? His supporters cheered him and, without push back from other Republican leaders, the story goes away as if it never happened.
Trump was a master manipulator of the media in last year's campaign. Hillary Clinton, trying to be calm, sound and reasonable, never found a way to counter Trump's ability to dominate the news cycle. The news stories pushed her around while Trump pushed the news where he wanted it to go. This thrilled those in love with Trump and got him the 78,000 votes in the right places, three states, he needed to win the presidency.
Trump was a master manipulator of the media in last year's campaign. Hillary Clinton, trying to be calm, sound and reasonable, never found a way to counter Trump's ability to dominate the news cycle. The news stories pushed her around while Trump pushed the news where he wanted it to go. This thrilled those in love with Trump and got him the 78,000 votes in the right places, three states, he needed to win the presidency.
4
While I agree with the basic gist of what David Leonhardt is getting at, he is not accurately stating the situation - French government officials did not "argue against" publication of hacked information, they declared that anyone did could face criminal prosecution. Imagine the NY Times or even Breitbart being willing to accept that at the climactic moment of a presidential election - there would have been much outrage about first amendment rights. Leonhardt still seems to believe that American journalists are capable of exercising good judgment, and leaves that up to the individual journalist. The French government knew better, and recognized what was at stake.
Mr. Leonhardt is making the same mistake that the Democrats are currently making in their election post mortems: inflating the importance of one election factor to the detriment of other factors. Despite what Secretary Clinton and her partisans would like everyone to believe, she did not lose because of the emails or James Comey. Those events just reinforced, through unforced error on the Clinton's part, a narrative that the Clinton's themselves have spent decades building: that they are untrustworthy-that they lie under oath; that they skirt the rules; that they are opportunists who have no allegiance to any one cause. Whether this is an accurate perception or not, and whether the GOP helped perpetuate it or not, there is no denying that they seem to have, at almost every opportunity, helped corroborating the perception. Hillary Clinton was a terrible choice as party nominee (and this is not an endorsement of Bernie, who was hardly better, if at all), ran a terrible campaign, and complaining about emails now will not trick any but the already converted into believing it.
3
Sorry john, since the article was only about Macrons emails and the service they rendered VS Hillaries, it was not a mistake. David said that yes, the server issue was a story and yes, there were things there but they should not have been covered so heavily to the detriment of EVERYTHING else. When en election is won or our over a few percentage points EVERYTHING is important. Trump lies, cheats, steals, peddles influence, wastes our money, has no political background or know how to be a diplomat - these were things that could have been brought to light and spun - fact to fact without opinion narrative , but they weren't. the meals were touted as the biggest offense since Watergate so yes, the media is totally at fault.
2
"There is a middle ground, one where journalistic judgment should prioritize news over the whiff of news."
Pity editors and reporters did not follow your suggestion for two years during the previous election. Equally sad, were the sensational tweets sent by many reporters working at the Political Desk.
Pity editors and reporters did not follow your suggestion for two years during the previous election. Equally sad, were the sensational tweets sent by many reporters working at the Political Desk.
Democratic turnout would have been much higher if the media had not flooded the public with polls that showed Clinton leading by wide margins, and maps that claimed Trump's chance of getting the 270 electoral votes was almost impossible.
Many people still have to go to their voting precinct and wait in line to vote. And in some precincts, it can take hours to vote. So, with months of polls and maps showing Clinton leading by a comfortable margin, it's not surprising that a lot of Democrats did not to vote.
A lot of independents also got fooled by the polls. Most of Gill Stein's voters would have switched to Clinton if they had known how close the election was going to be. Likewise, many of the liberal voters that supported Gary Johnson would have switched to Clinton.
Republicans, on the other hand, were energized by the medias polls and maps. They knew their votes were need voted so they came out for the Republican Congressional voters. On the other hand, the polls probably caused some of the conservative Johnson voters to switch to Trump.
In physics there is something called the observer effect, which refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. Releasing polls close to an election has a similar effect; and when the polls showed the electorate preferred Clinton by a comfortable margin, the polls changed the electorate.
Many people still have to go to their voting precinct and wait in line to vote. And in some precincts, it can take hours to vote. So, with months of polls and maps showing Clinton leading by a comfortable margin, it's not surprising that a lot of Democrats did not to vote.
A lot of independents also got fooled by the polls. Most of Gill Stein's voters would have switched to Clinton if they had known how close the election was going to be. Likewise, many of the liberal voters that supported Gary Johnson would have switched to Clinton.
Republicans, on the other hand, were energized by the medias polls and maps. They knew their votes were need voted so they came out for the Republican Congressional voters. On the other hand, the polls probably caused some of the conservative Johnson voters to switch to Trump.
In physics there is something called the observer effect, which refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. Releasing polls close to an election has a similar effect; and when the polls showed the electorate preferred Clinton by a comfortable margin, the polls changed the electorate.
1
Part of the problem is that France has too many leftist wing news outlets spewing ignorance about the universalism of man, "equality", and other regressive values. A healthier media mix should be 5 to 1 in favor of nationalism, and the one remaining equalist outlet monitored by the government as a pressure release valve for the crazies in society.
Also worth noting is that the uniqueness is not so much French media, but American media. News in most countries is sober and boring, reporting on serious subjects. American media is full of sound bytes, non-news, and who-said-what gossip to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They should have consistently called out Clinton for her idiotic beliefs in diversity, equality, tolerance, and so on. But they knew doing so would cost her the election, so they ran with Trump's one-liners.
As for hacking, two things.
One, how do you know the emails affected voting in the first place, if the contents were so mundane? Two, if Russia really is hacking to prop up nationalism, they should be praised. An error they made is hacking too late in the race, when an earlier exposing would allowed more time to damage him.
If anything the Trump administration should have aided the Le Pen campaign, clandestinely or otherwise. Those who think this is unfair fail to understand that equalists often sink to the same level to get what they want, so the same should be done towards them and their institutions.
Also worth noting is that the uniqueness is not so much French media, but American media. News in most countries is sober and boring, reporting on serious subjects. American media is full of sound bytes, non-news, and who-said-what gossip to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They should have consistently called out Clinton for her idiotic beliefs in diversity, equality, tolerance, and so on. But they knew doing so would cost her the election, so they ran with Trump's one-liners.
As for hacking, two things.
One, how do you know the emails affected voting in the first place, if the contents were so mundane? Two, if Russia really is hacking to prop up nationalism, they should be praised. An error they made is hacking too late in the race, when an earlier exposing would allowed more time to damage him.
If anything the Trump administration should have aided the Le Pen campaign, clandestinely or otherwise. Those who think this is unfair fail to understand that equalists often sink to the same level to get what they want, so the same should be done towards them and their institutions.
1
I have forgotten why H sought to have her server at home rather than using the state Dept's equipment. Did she ever give a clear statement.? If not perhaps it was she who kept the issue alive.
3
Yes, our new 24-7 news cycles are prompting over-dramatization of stories. There were other factors involved in France's failure to fall for Fake News though. Mainly, they don't have the French version of Fox News or Breitbart or Alex Jones to spread the disinformation, fake news and lies. Additionally, and clearly, the French people are more informed and better informed than the average Trump voter.
Putin with the help of Alt Right in America tried badly to influence French elections in the same manner they did Brexit and US elections, and as they will for upcoming UK elections utilizing Bots, Fake News, bod-driven tweets. We have a problem, and its not just from Russia, it's a rot that has taken hold in America, its poor education systems, and its the Alt Right working with Putin. Let's nor forget that Trump all but endorsed Le Pen.
Putin with the help of Alt Right in America tried badly to influence French elections in the same manner they did Brexit and US elections, and as they will for upcoming UK elections utilizing Bots, Fake News, bod-driven tweets. We have a problem, and its not just from Russia, it's a rot that has taken hold in America, its poor education systems, and its the Alt Right working with Putin. Let's nor forget that Trump all but endorsed Le Pen.
One more time. It WASN'T the hacked emails that did Hillary in. It was Hillary Clinton herself and the Democratic party who decided to push a highly unlikable candidate to the finishing line. The party and Hillary seemed to be living in a dark hole. It was NOT clear (apparently) to them that the country, both Democrats and Republicans wanted CHANGE, something Hillary never represented. She was doomed before she even ran. She ran on strong feminist issues when it was the men and their wives that were angry. Anyone could have beaten trump except Hillary.
Now what could the media done better? They could have looked at Bernie Sanders as a viable candidate instead of some crackpot. It was well into the campaign before the media woke up and realized there was another very popular candidate that was running.
So we have the media and Hillary to blame for the inauguration of trump and no one else.
Now what could the media done better? They could have looked at Bernie Sanders as a viable candidate instead of some crackpot. It was well into the campaign before the media woke up and realized there was another very popular candidate that was running.
So we have the media and Hillary to blame for the inauguration of trump and no one else.
3
If I was a politician running for office neither my staff or i would not even be using email.
The effectiveness of the overhyped story of Clinton's e-mails in swaying the electioin was once again a marker for the lack of critical thinking by the public who voted in Trump, the worst president in this republic's history. Bernie dismissed the issue in the public debates instead of taking advantage of his opponent. Courage is such a rare commodity in our congress (e.g., Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren) and elsewhere. Sure journalists bear some responsibility, but the fact that the public uncritically consumes hand fed predigested stories shows us up close the soft underbelly of our democracy. One wonders if democracy carries the seeds of its own destruction, and if this is a reversable process in our troubled times.
5
"The dominant feature of the emails was their ordinariness." Mr. Leonhardt has exquisitely selective memory. One [of Mrs. Clinton's e-mails] admitted that she had "private positions and public positions," a wonderfully politic way of describing duplicity. Even against DONALD TRUMP, "lying" raised some eyebrows. And wasn't it through those [and DNC] e-mails that we learned the party leaders did everything but try and give Bernie Sanders a hot-foot in order to drive him out of the primaries? If that's what Mr. Leonhardt glosses over as mundane, then it's not only TRUMP who's turning off the American public.
The big difference is Hillary's emails revealed her as a corrupt, cash for access, money hungry buffoon who did not even command the respect of her own campaign manager. That is news the American people deserved to bake into the Hillary cake, if you will. Sorry. More information is always better. The voters can sift the wheat from the chaff. With Hillary, all we were left with was dry inedible chaff. And now we have Trump.
3
We tend to criticize everyone else in the entire world, but realizing our own mistakes is impossible. Americans want to be surprised, entertained, by the media. The media in the US tends to create or destroy images of public figures. Assange demonstrated to have such a power over the media in the US, now he is able to make or break public figures. He despises Mrs. Clinton, and it seems with the "help" of the media in the US, not just the Russians and its alleged involvement during the elections, Assange and Russia with the help of the US media determined who should be the next president of the USA.
Something I haven't seen mentioned: Isn't the candidate whose email got hacked obviously the one we should vote for?
2
Journalism changed tremendously with Watergate. Investigative type journalism is hard, but pretending is easy.
Nobody ever won a Pulitzer by saying, "nothing much here folks." Besides, narratives entertain, reinforce existing opinions, and as a consequence, sell ads. In politics, there are themes that repeat themselves year after year in stories. Writers often "find" and then write the story that fits the common perception, rather than opening our eyes to something new. And horse races make for good drama, not policy discussions or perceptive studies of positions. These are some of the factors that lead to mediocre "journalism".
The narrative idea can be examined in light of Hillary's recent discussion of her book in the works and why she lost the elections. She had a lot of balanced and self-critical things to say, but the media narrative was essentially "Hillary makes excuses." This lack of taking responsibility meme is common in "defining" Clinton, but a perceptive story might--and a few did--note that Nate Silver and other knowledgeable people had weighed in on these issues and had plenty to say that merited discussion.
This kind of writing may or may not be done "with intent" but the media should be self-critical, identify their own flaws, and seek to improve just as they expect everyone else to do.
Nobody ever won a Pulitzer by saying, "nothing much here folks." Besides, narratives entertain, reinforce existing opinions, and as a consequence, sell ads. In politics, there are themes that repeat themselves year after year in stories. Writers often "find" and then write the story that fits the common perception, rather than opening our eyes to something new. And horse races make for good drama, not policy discussions or perceptive studies of positions. These are some of the factors that lead to mediocre "journalism".
The narrative idea can be examined in light of Hillary's recent discussion of her book in the works and why she lost the elections. She had a lot of balanced and self-critical things to say, but the media narrative was essentially "Hillary makes excuses." This lack of taking responsibility meme is common in "defining" Clinton, but a perceptive story might--and a few did--note that Nate Silver and other knowledgeable people had weighed in on these issues and had plenty to say that merited discussion.
This kind of writing may or may not be done "with intent" but the media should be self-critical, identify their own flaws, and seek to improve just as they expect everyone else to do.
Hillary clinton did not lose the election because of hacking. Hillary clinton is an establishment candidate with close ties to wall street, a real washington insider.
The clintons revoked glass steigel, initiated the 95 crime bill, cut the welfare rolls, weakened the social safety net and maintained military spending and us foreign policy.
She was a center right candidate that didn't offer an alternative to reagan. Trump was perceived as the outsider common man.
The media stopped reporting honestly about democrats at least as far back as carter, which has given the party no internal tension, no left leaning
Pull to force the democrat establishment to return to liberalism's roots.
The left is following the media, Meaning it is responding to fox personalities and controversial soundbites, with a 30 second attention span as the party slides right.
The media misinterpreted this election And focused on small issues instead of overwhelming discontent with business as usual..
The clintons revoked glass steigel, initiated the 95 crime bill, cut the welfare rolls, weakened the social safety net and maintained military spending and us foreign policy.
She was a center right candidate that didn't offer an alternative to reagan. Trump was perceived as the outsider common man.
The media stopped reporting honestly about democrats at least as far back as carter, which has given the party no internal tension, no left leaning
Pull to force the democrat establishment to return to liberalism's roots.
The left is following the media, Meaning it is responding to fox personalities and controversial soundbites, with a 30 second attention span as the party slides right.
The media misinterpreted this election And focused on small issues instead of overwhelming discontent with business as usual..
1
And the American people (47% I mean) misinterpreted the election and selected an absolutely awful, incompetent and ridiculous buffoon. Honestly I don't think "discontent with business as usual" is the real problem here--I think there is a bizarre, pathological hatred of HRC in parts of the country that simply doesn't stand up to any rational analysis. Part of it may be simple misogyny, but part of is something else. And its not explained by what happened in the 1990s because quite a few voters today do not even have adult memories of the 1990s.
Really I think the "we misread the level of discontent" theory doesn't explain all of this. It certainly doesn't explain why all sorts of well-to-do Republicans--not those rural whites who feel "left behind" voted for Trump.
Really I think the "we misread the level of discontent" theory doesn't explain all of this. It certainly doesn't explain why all sorts of well-to-do Republicans--not those rural whites who feel "left behind" voted for Trump.
Right wing media and manstream media have made leaked emails into a big story and then kept reporting that emails are a big problem for Clinton. It is clear to me that the narrative has been effectively forced by right wing media, then perpetuated by conservative politicians into mainstream media. When I read some of the said emails I couldn't notice anything other than just the mundane and ordinary information in them. Later, media stopped providing the original text of the said emails, and kept reporting only about the "email scandal", and the public reaction to it, as if the perception of nothingness was the actual scandal.
2
Two other factors played their roles:
Apart from gospel and music, AM radio in rural America is mostly right-wing talk radio, full of hate and fake news. Hate radio hugely amplified the e-mails released by the Russians through WikiLeaks. Without hate radio, these leaks would have been in newspapers and on the internet, but would not have been amplified, distorted, and drummed into millions of minds day after day, night after night. After all, few people read today.
Secondly, the French remember the German occupation of France during WWII. They know how the right-wing government of Vichy behaved during that occupation. They suspect that Jean Marie Le Pen used torture during France’s attempt to continue its occupation of Algeria. They have been immunized against l’extrême droite, which may be why AM radio in France is benign.
Apart from gospel and music, AM radio in rural America is mostly right-wing talk radio, full of hate and fake news. Hate radio hugely amplified the e-mails released by the Russians through WikiLeaks. Without hate radio, these leaks would have been in newspapers and on the internet, but would not have been amplified, distorted, and drummed into millions of minds day after day, night after night. After all, few people read today.
Secondly, the French remember the German occupation of France during WWII. They know how the right-wing government of Vichy behaved during that occupation. They suspect that Jean Marie Le Pen used torture during France’s attempt to continue its occupation of Algeria. They have been immunized against l’extrême droite, which may be why AM radio in France is benign.
3
" Last year, Russian agents stole thousands of emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and published them via WikiLeaks. The dominant feature of the emails was their ordinariness."
Really? Like the DNC doing its utmost to throw the nomination to Hillary? Like Democrats trying to use local anti-semitism against Bernie ("my peeps..." remember that one?) Like all those revelations of journalists doing their utmost to help/coordinate with Hillary's campaign (Donna Brazile giving Hillary debate questions in advance). Like campaign officials wondering about the rationale for Hillary's campaign - and her colossally poor judgment in setting up that private server? C'mon David. You can't be serious.
Really? Like the DNC doing its utmost to throw the nomination to Hillary? Like Democrats trying to use local anti-semitism against Bernie ("my peeps..." remember that one?) Like all those revelations of journalists doing their utmost to help/coordinate with Hillary's campaign (Donna Brazile giving Hillary debate questions in advance). Like campaign officials wondering about the rationale for Hillary's campaign - and her colossally poor judgment in setting up that private server? C'mon David. You can't be serious.
4
....I must have been cut off.
How is it possible that 60% of US didn't know it was republicans stopping the functioning of government so that they could be reelected to keep up their anti-America nonsense.
Reporters need to remember that in a fascist state they are usually out of work and in prison.
How is it possible that 60% of US didn't know it was republicans stopping the functioning of government so that they could be reelected to keep up their anti-America nonsense.
Reporters need to remember that in a fascist state they are usually out of work and in prison.
13
And then, in another poll, American people think that both parties are the same.
Why such ignorance? I think a key to understand this is the right wing media. They are vastly underestimated in how they influence national narrative on any subject. First, they do have a very large audience on the conservative side, around 50-60 millions of Americans tuning in to right wing radio, fox news and right wing internet on a regular basis. The mechanism of their influence is very simple, they force conservative politicians to convey the right wing message anytime they are interviewed on MSM. This message, including outright lies, is then propagated on MSM as a legitimate opinion and becomes part of the national narrative.
That is exactly how they forced the Clinton's investigations, including Benghazi and emails, as a very serious national security scandals, which they never were, however were repeatedly presented as such on MSM.
Why such ignorance? I think a key to understand this is the right wing media. They are vastly underestimated in how they influence national narrative on any subject. First, they do have a very large audience on the conservative side, around 50-60 millions of Americans tuning in to right wing radio, fox news and right wing internet on a regular basis. The mechanism of their influence is very simple, they force conservative politicians to convey the right wing message anytime they are interviewed on MSM. This message, including outright lies, is then propagated on MSM as a legitimate opinion and becomes part of the national narrative.
That is exactly how they forced the Clinton's investigations, including Benghazi and emails, as a very serious national security scandals, which they never were, however were repeatedly presented as such on MSM.
4
Democracy depends on a well informed electorate and a vigorous free press. We have neither at present.
A poll I saw before the 2014 midterm: 60% of voters did not know which party controlled Congress. Republicans took congress in 2010 and publicized their desire to destroy the Obama presidency, they actually defaulted on our credit rating, they brought government to a halt, and instead of getting about the Nation's business they held 60+ votes to repeal a healthcare plan designed by a conservative think tank and implemented by a republican governor in a blue state.
Why? Because of the Black Guy in the White House.
Now, my question for this newspaper and every other legitimate news business in the Nation: How is it possible that 60
A poll I saw before the 2014 midterm: 60% of voters did not know which party controlled Congress. Republicans took congress in 2010 and publicized their desire to destroy the Obama presidency, they actually defaulted on our credit rating, they brought government to a halt, and instead of getting about the Nation's business they held 60+ votes to repeal a healthcare plan designed by a conservative think tank and implemented by a republican governor in a blue state.
Why? Because of the Black Guy in the White House.
Now, my question for this newspaper and every other legitimate news business in the Nation: How is it possible that 60
10
America is the stupidest nation in the history of the world. To wit, we have elected a reality television host as president. Our media, with some exceptions, sink to the level of TMZ, you know, because money is more important than principles. Our blessed Constitution sanctifies stupid things like guns and making sure that someone can yell "Jesus hates you" at your gay son's funeral, you know, because free speech. And it ensures that corporations control the political process, because, you know, free speech. When 50% of your country is stupid and believe that God is rowing their canoe, well, what can be worse?
16
and all of those things allow you to post this "glass half-empty" comment. that same constitution allows the gov't to tell a bakery-you can't refuse to serve a customer because they are gay. so maybe you should look on the bright side and all the things you like that are protected.
2
So, does this mean that you will encourage journalists to stop reporting on gossip and you will focus on important news instead? And when will journalists start calling Trump and his administration liars? Or should we start calling him an "untruther" or "falsehooder"?
14
The tease in my in-box reads "The Media's Biggest 2016 Mistake," and this article (as did so many others last fall) focuses solely on Clinton's "damned e-mails" as Bernie Sanders referred to them in his debate with the former Secretary of State.
With respect--your comments are published as opinions, and we all get to have one, and here is mine.
The media's biggest mistake in 2016 was to ignore the credibility of Bernie Sanders's campaign. Why was so much ink and air time invested in Hillary and the 15 (?!) GOP also-rans when the people were obviously interested in Sanders's ideas for solutions to our societal and economic problems? Was it not enough of a political phenomenon to have the crowds at his rallies be so large that he often gave his speech a second time to the people who could not get in?
Even today, nine months after conceding the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton, Bernie remains the most popular politician in Washington--although, admittedly, that bar is set pretty low!
The American profession of journalism could learn much from how the French press handled the e-mail hacks in their country, but our news system can also learn a lot simply by looking at how they basically snubbed the efforts of the single most dedicated politician we have seen in ... well, possibly ... in history.
What's done is done, but it's not too late to focus on Bernie's ideas for health care, education, jobs, and the environment. It might be proof you've learned your lesson.
With respect--your comments are published as opinions, and we all get to have one, and here is mine.
The media's biggest mistake in 2016 was to ignore the credibility of Bernie Sanders's campaign. Why was so much ink and air time invested in Hillary and the 15 (?!) GOP also-rans when the people were obviously interested in Sanders's ideas for solutions to our societal and economic problems? Was it not enough of a political phenomenon to have the crowds at his rallies be so large that he often gave his speech a second time to the people who could not get in?
Even today, nine months after conceding the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton, Bernie remains the most popular politician in Washington--although, admittedly, that bar is set pretty low!
The American profession of journalism could learn much from how the French press handled the e-mail hacks in their country, but our news system can also learn a lot simply by looking at how they basically snubbed the efforts of the single most dedicated politician we have seen in ... well, possibly ... in history.
What's done is done, but it's not too late to focus on Bernie's ideas for health care, education, jobs, and the environment. It might be proof you've learned your lesson.
3
You are correct, our media could have done a better job. Some would say they didn't do their job at all. They had the power to expose the lies proffered 24/7 by the Trump campaign. They could have held his feet to the fire asking hard questions, but that never happened. Instead, they spewed accusations about the infamous emails...they followed every shiny ball the Trump campaign rolled out, they called Clinton "unauthentic". They turned their backs on the biggest story in years...an incompetent thug chasing the brass ring and fomenting racism and unrest...where were they?
10
Tell your bosses!
5
They are tone deaf. First they need to recognize their fault then they have to admit their misreading the situation. But don't expect any apology from David's bosses because they were in Hillary's camp even before she declared her candidacy (much anticipated, almost by default) and more importantly, they completely ignored Bernie's existence as though he was a small insect or bug who could simply be flicked out of existence. Their columnists proceeded to so as soon as they realized, oh man, this Bernie is actually becoming a threat to our queen Hillary!
3
We have media that run the gamut from very liberal to very conservative. I would argue that conservative media succeeded in shaping the narrative in a way that made it virtually impossible for the other side, and those in the middle, to ignore this narrative. If they had done so, the right would have become even more emboldened, since it could argue that "lamestream media" was purposely ignoring stories that denigrated its preferred candidate. Whatever one thinks of the right in terms of politics--I find them abhorrent--you have to give them credit for understanding that emotion (hate to use the coming word) trumps reason every time.
4
Well, Donna Grey, even if you were right (and you're not, go read what Colin Powell advised Hilary) the email "scandal" was a very minor issue that said little or nothing about her character or her abilities. And (as even Comey admits) didn't come close to constituting criminal activity. And certainly didn't rise to the importance of the other candidates admission of sexual assaults, habitual lying, fraudulent business activities, and general buffoonery.
10
There is such a herd mentality with our media. But even more we should chastise the gate keepers, the bosses who choose the stories, and direct the attentions. The owners control the narrative to their advantage.
4
The "you need both a public and a private position” issue probably didn't help to establish her straightforwardness as a candidate either.... And some still wonder why she lost! She had a track record for all to see (except what she refused to disclose, and what she purposely deleted)
1
i guess you're happy with Trump's version of public and private positions.
1
Chris, having different positions publicly and privately is a commonplace characteristic of successful public leaders. While Lincoln conceded in correspondence with a mentor in 1859 that he agreed with abolition, he accepted the mentor`s advice and beat 2 abolitionists for the Republican nomination. three years later he signed the Emancipation Proclamation not the abolitionists.
2
Oops, this was meant as a reply to Ross's earlier comment.
So where is that searching and fearless review of the Times' coverage of the election that the Executive Editor has promised? I haven't seen it yet. I suspect that if some sort of independent reviewer looked at the coverage, she too would agree with David L. regarding the election. "But her emails" is a now-common and very apt meme making the rounds, for a very good reason. And the press - especially the Times, which crows that it actually broke the email story - is very much part of the blame.
6
When we point the finger to our press not putting America first, we should first examine our own actions? Do we even think of America (let alone first) when making decisions regarding our life and work? For many years, I have been considered by my family to be somewhat eccentric because I decided that at least one of our two cars would be American made. Do we ever think about the origin of our food when shopping in a supermarket? The French car industry or their food growers will never go bankrupt, since most people buy local goods and produce, even when there are no barriers to buying German cars or food from Italy or Spain. The reason why the journalists did not think about their country is that we have no national culture, no pride in our homegrown art and culture.
4
I agree with David that the email issue is a question of scale. Where we disagree is that I, along with many other voters, believe the HRC's use of a private server that was only discovered through a separate investigation despite the State Dept's attempted stonewalling, the swiping thousands of emails and the tortured explanations tilted the scale to disqualification for even running for office. The contents, some salacious but mostly mundane, was just icing on the cake that she was not trustworthy. Others made similar decisions to tilt the scale against DJT based on Trumps behavior. It's not the media's fault, its the candidates fault and voters chose what mattered most to them.
2
Where to start? No less than an abdication of responsibilities by the fourth estate to inform the public and serve as a check on the activities of government, in this case political candidates for same? Really? Where are they teaching these journalistic "principles"?
Secondly, there is still no conclusive evidence that it was the Russians, the person who released the emails says it wasn't the Russians, but of course if we can blame, essentially, the "evil empire" for Hillary's loss then there is no need to amend the democratic party platform to include issues of economic equality, now is there?
Third the emails were not all benign in nature in that they exposed the dirty politics that the DNC engaged in to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, because he is not reading from the playbook of the moneyed interests that support Hillary! Once again " good job" to the NYTs for disseminating such propaganda!
Secondly, there is still no conclusive evidence that it was the Russians, the person who released the emails says it wasn't the Russians, but of course if we can blame, essentially, the "evil empire" for Hillary's loss then there is no need to amend the democratic party platform to include issues of economic equality, now is there?
Third the emails were not all benign in nature in that they exposed the dirty politics that the DNC engaged in to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, because he is not reading from the playbook of the moneyed interests that support Hillary! Once again " good job" to the NYTs for disseminating such propaganda!
5
I agree that the media kept hammering away at Hillary's private server. And the obsession with her server was reported in place of her accomplishments and her record of supporting human rights. The private was an issue worth reporting, but the scale of the reporting was completely out-of-whack with its relative importance regarding the candidate -- especially when compared to the scale of her opponent's judgment: contradicting himself repeatedly, misstatements of the truth and reality, insulting entire groups of people, grabbing p*((y. There were so many egregious faults in Donald Trump and there seemed to be little sustained attempt to keep them in the public eye, maybe because there were more than news cycles could handle. The other real failing of the media was in giving Trump so much free press while he was seeking the GOP nomination. I think that the novelty of his candidacy and campaign was such great theatre that those reporting it failed to ask themselves about the possible consequences of him winning the nomination and the Presidency.
3
There were two significant mistakes made by the media in the 2016 presidential election. The one mentioned in the article concerning overhyped coverage of the hacked email is even more significant after seeing how a similar incident was managed so effectively by the French media.
The other significant mistake was how horribly wrong the media was in predicting who would win the American Presidential Election and by how much. Sure, they will blame it on their polling consultants, but the media outlets fully invested in the information and broadcast it as gospel in a collective moment of getting it wrong (just like the Democrats did).
When sensation takes precedence over information, our media seems to suffer from self inflicted wounds. They compete so viciously to be first, that perspective seems to suffer. Wading through the swamps of fake news must be daunting and frustrating to news professionals, who find their resources taxed by disproving information as much as substantiating legitimate stories
Americans can learn quite a bit about running a nation and a presidential election from the French. The hack attack in France did not stir up a media or voter frenzy. Not bombarding French voters with 'in your face' continuous coverage gives the media and the voters an opportunity to reflect instead of react.
The other significant mistake was how horribly wrong the media was in predicting who would win the American Presidential Election and by how much. Sure, they will blame it on their polling consultants, but the media outlets fully invested in the information and broadcast it as gospel in a collective moment of getting it wrong (just like the Democrats did).
When sensation takes precedence over information, our media seems to suffer from self inflicted wounds. They compete so viciously to be first, that perspective seems to suffer. Wading through the swamps of fake news must be daunting and frustrating to news professionals, who find their resources taxed by disproving information as much as substantiating legitimate stories
Americans can learn quite a bit about running a nation and a presidential election from the French. The hack attack in France did not stir up a media or voter frenzy. Not bombarding French voters with 'in your face' continuous coverage gives the media and the voters an opportunity to reflect instead of react.
19
David, the media's biggest sin was not overhyping anything related to HDRC's campaign. While I agree that your particular overhyping point is quite valid, I believe that the media's biggest sin was in overhyping TheDonald.
The media gave TheDonald much more free—and unquestioned, unrebutted—exposure than for any other candidate I've seen since I watched the GOP's show at the Cow Palace in 1956.
The media gave TheDonald much more free—and unquestioned, unrebutted—exposure than for any other candidate I've seen since I watched the GOP's show at the Cow Palace in 1956.
3
Not to take anything away from the French, but: they had the opportunity to observe everything that went wrong with email reporting in the United States, then another 6-9 months to process the situation, plenty of advance warning, and advance knowledge of the culprit's exact identity, modus operandi and likely timing. When this story first broke last year, U.S. voters and media had none of those things.
In this country, everyone was dealing with a very chaotic, confusing, unprecedented situation in real time. Most of what we know now about the extent of foreign involvement in the hack was learned piecemeal, over an extended period of time. This isn't to exonerate anyone, it's just to say: if the situations were reversed - if the French had been hacked first, long before their election day, and then the U.S. experienced the exact same thing well into the following year, long after the culprit and fallout were well known, with plenty of advance notice and minimal opportunity for pre-election reporting - I suspect things would have played out a bit differently on BOTH sides of the pond. We can't say exactly how. But these aren't QUITE equivalent situations.
In this country, everyone was dealing with a very chaotic, confusing, unprecedented situation in real time. Most of what we know now about the extent of foreign involvement in the hack was learned piecemeal, over an extended period of time. This isn't to exonerate anyone, it's just to say: if the situations were reversed - if the French had been hacked first, long before their election day, and then the U.S. experienced the exact same thing well into the following year, long after the culprit and fallout were well known, with plenty of advance notice and minimal opportunity for pre-election reporting - I suspect things would have played out a bit differently on BOTH sides of the pond. We can't say exactly how. But these aren't QUITE equivalent situations.
2
comment 2: The other (after-the-fact) thing that the media has almost completely missed, IMO, is the role of misogyny in the election's outcome. I suspect that many (though obviously not all) in the media are accustomed to working with and respecting women and just don't realize how much misogyny lingers in our society. Just as most of us white people didn't realize the extent of racism until more recently. When we live and work and hang out with like-minded people, we miss a lot of the other thinking in our country.
4
She might have voilated policy, but it didn't sound like anything was done to make sure she was aware of this. As a former internal auditor, I can attest that merely posting something usually means that the only people readijng it are internal auditors - it's their job to make sure management is aware. What shocks me is that the State Dept IT's dept went along as well.
But when it comes down to it, Clinton did herself in. Instead of apologize or explain in wonkish detail she should have taken a page out of Trump's playbook, "Yeh? So what? You try to manage diplomacy!"
But when it comes down to it, Clinton did herself in. Instead of apologize or explain in wonkish detail she should have taken a page out of Trump's playbook, "Yeh? So what? You try to manage diplomacy!"
4
"Imagine for a moment that your inbox, or your boss’s, was released to the world. I’ll guess that it would not be free of embarrassment."
What was so reprehensible to me about coverage and reaction to the Clinton email leaks was that, no matter how mundane the content of the leak was, the mere fact that she was hacked somehow proved her guilt. The crime was not an illegal hacking and release of private information, by a foreign power, to influence the results of a national election. No, the criminal was seen to be Hilary herself, because she could not have been hacked if she didn't have anything to hide! The hackers got a free pass while Hilary took all the blame.
Such rank, blame-the-victim misogyny unfortunately continues today. Hilary has publicly stated recently that she believes she lost the election due to the email leak and Comey's Congressional testimony on the eve of the election. These were very real occurrences that legitimately need to be examined. Yet commentators have been quick to push back with "but she doesn't take responsibility for her own failure," "she lost because she didn't have a message," "she didn't connect with working class voters," etc. Once again the victim is blamed, and those real actors who very definitely took illegal or questionable action to compromise our election are let off the hook.
What was so reprehensible to me about coverage and reaction to the Clinton email leaks was that, no matter how mundane the content of the leak was, the mere fact that she was hacked somehow proved her guilt. The crime was not an illegal hacking and release of private information, by a foreign power, to influence the results of a national election. No, the criminal was seen to be Hilary herself, because she could not have been hacked if she didn't have anything to hide! The hackers got a free pass while Hilary took all the blame.
Such rank, blame-the-victim misogyny unfortunately continues today. Hilary has publicly stated recently that she believes she lost the election due to the email leak and Comey's Congressional testimony on the eve of the election. These were very real occurrences that legitimately need to be examined. Yet commentators have been quick to push back with "but she doesn't take responsibility for her own failure," "she lost because she didn't have a message," "she didn't connect with working class voters," etc. Once again the victim is blamed, and those real actors who very definitely took illegal or questionable action to compromise our election are let off the hook.
8
David, are you saying the French are politically better educated, sophisticated and smarter than the Americans?
5
In my ongoing effort to reduce my media consumption, especially cable news. I'm amazed how easy it has been. The Times and the Post Opinion pages , The News Hour and on Sundays John Dickerson and Fareed Zacharia provide me with all the balance and info I need and I feel like I've had a very long, hot shower!
1
Nobody really cares about Hillary's emails. Her decision to use a private server was scary, but really just poor judgement. She did not lose because of email leaks. She lost because of the corruption around her Clinton Foundation, the Global initiative she ran, the monies from corrupt and anti-humanitarian countries, her and her husbands poor execution and fraud in Haiti home building, and her stand on illegal immigration and open borders.
Trump won because he was not Hillary - people in France voted against Le Pen and against established political insiders. People in the US voted against Hillary and against established political insiders. Pretty much the same; too bad we didn't have a Macron running last November.
Trump won because he was not Hillary - people in France voted against Le Pen and against established political insiders. People in the US voted against Hillary and against established political insiders. Pretty much the same; too bad we didn't have a Macron running last November.
3
"Mary in Atl", we all should keep in mind that there were dramatic lies told about Hillary Clinton that people accepted as fact. One woman I talked to in Frederick, Md., told me that Hillary had transferred 1.5 billion dollars to the middle east before the election so that she and Bill would have plenty of money after she lost. It took me only a minute or so on the internet to learn that this was a false charge, but the woman to whom I spoke insisted it was true and was "proven".
My personal view is that the Clintons made terrific mistakes in the way the foundation was run and how much money the foundation and they themselves took from sources for their speaking fees. She since knew she would likely run for president, they both should have realized that, at minimum, appearances would be a huge negative factor. All of that pales by comparison, however, to have someone in the White House who stands to benefit financially, and directly, from his own decisions as president. This is a blatant, unmistakable conflict.
My personal view is that the Clintons made terrific mistakes in the way the foundation was run and how much money the foundation and they themselves took from sources for their speaking fees. She since knew she would likely run for president, they both should have realized that, at minimum, appearances would be a huge negative factor. All of that pales by comparison, however, to have someone in the White House who stands to benefit financially, and directly, from his own decisions as president. This is a blatant, unmistakable conflict.
2
I am not aware of any charges and findings of guilt whatsoever of corruption around the Clinton foundation, the global initiative.
If you have specific charges, and findings of guilt,please post them otherwise you are simply continuing the narrative that is false that was circulated during the campaign. You are the victim at fake news obviously, but shame on continuing to spread it.
If you have specific charges, and findings of guilt,please post them otherwise you are simply continuing the narrative that is false that was circulated during the campaign. You are the victim at fake news obviously, but shame on continuing to spread it.
1
Yes, the major news media is primarily owned by the same Robber Barons who have taken over OUR governments at all levels. They control the messages we see and work hard not to cover the real news of the attempts to destroy democracy in America.
The United States is a young country. We have been politically naive and have not paid attention. It's OUR democracy. It's OUR government, meant to protect us against the excesses of people like The Con Don an his Robber Baron friends. It is NOT a spectator sport. I think we are learning that the hard way.
Next time you start to say "they" about any member of a political party say "I or We" because WE are the people with the political power (votes), consumer power (customers) and keys to the "stock markets" (401k contributions). Only WE - at grassroots level with grassroots synergy - can change things and we can do it overnight with the right actions.
NOW is the time.
The United States is a young country. We have been politically naive and have not paid attention. It's OUR democracy. It's OUR government, meant to protect us against the excesses of people like The Con Don an his Robber Baron friends. It is NOT a spectator sport. I think we are learning that the hard way.
Next time you start to say "they" about any member of a political party say "I or We" because WE are the people with the political power (votes), consumer power (customers) and keys to the "stock markets" (401k contributions). Only WE - at grassroots level with grassroots synergy - can change things and we can do it overnight with the right actions.
NOW is the time.
8
You get it! It is we the people who fueled Bernie's campaign, from start to finish, with my millennials' tiny savings...
4
Yes, and thank you for setting the pace. I was all for Mr. Sanders' message when he started campaigning because I thought he wanted the democratic party to win. I was horrified when he started attacking Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton and later when I learned he KNEW the Russians were packing his supporters facebook pages with lies about her way ahead of the election and HE SAID NOTHING. I consider him a traitor to America.
6
The problem in America is the fierce competition among media outlets and the longing for sensationalism among viewers and readers. The conservative and far-right organisations would have published the leaked emails stolen from Hillary Clinton's sites and made headlines, even if mainstream, liberal outlets had practised more restraint. It was a difficult choice for respectable press and a sad episode of the presidential campaign. The American public was cruel and mindless, devouring greedily any bad stories just to satisfy their curiosity and cynism.
6
Yes, well, all very well David. ... but have you spoken with your senior editors? You know, the ones that breathlessly highlighted each days email releases? The same ones who let Comey's last minute disclosures dominate the front pages?
10
I guess that minor hypocrisy is ok! Ah, Liberals
1
And the NYT's Editorial Board is still excoriating Hillary Clinton every chance they get.
13
Nobody likes Hillary. Her first campaign for the presidency, where she was top dog, was easily beaten by an unknown black senator from Illinois. And no one has liked her ever since. Listen to her speeches on YouTube and you'll understand.
3
To the New York Times:
You need to make a never-ending mea culpa to the United States of America to atone for your coverage of the election. It was a paean to false equivalence and helped give cover to Comey and his treason.
Will you even publish this mild rebuke?
You need to make a never-ending mea culpa to the United States of America to atone for your coverage of the election. It was a paean to false equivalence and helped give cover to Comey and his treason.
Will you even publish this mild rebuke?
7
Hillary Clinton didn't lose the election because of the press' irresponsibility in publishing her emails, she lost becasue she failed to address the issues that mattered to working class voters in the key swing states that skew election results. Moreover she lost to someone that shouldn't have had a chance to be elected dogcatcher. That's the fault of both the anti-democratic Electoral College - an institution embraced by the Democratic Party - and the Democratic Party's abandonment of ordinary working people in favor of Wall Street's 1%, and an obsessive focus on that part of the electorate in the upper 20% of the income bracket. Everything else - the Russians, Comey, Jill Stein, Bernie - is just sour grapes and special pleading by a party whose partisans need a focus on straw men and faux patriotism to distract the rest of us from the political disarray in which they find themselves and their failure to confront it.
4
Mr. Leonhardt seems to have forgotten that the wikileaks postings showed that the DNC, despiite protestations to the contrary, did collude with the Clinton campaign to insure that she got the nomination. The e-mails also showed the cozy character of her relationship with Wall Street, a central part of her fundraising strategy, and gave the lie to her claims that she would be tough on the banks. No tawdry scandals, just a picture of the reality of HRC's neoliberal approach to governance, and a confirmation that we would continue to see business as usual.
Like Mr. Leonhardt, I would like to see the news media become something more than they have become, profit centers for giant media corporations. We should not pretend, however, that the e-mails were about nothing important.
Like Mr. Leonhardt, I would like to see the news media become something more than they have become, profit centers for giant media corporations. We should not pretend, however, that the e-mails were about nothing important.
" ... the French media exercised better, more sober judgment than the American media."
In my opinion, the "less sober judgment" is probably because here in the USA, news has to be profitable. Scandal and confrontation sells papers (and gets eyeballs and clicks).
We have a capitalist economic system that has many advantages (innovation, independence, etc.), but we have to come to terms with - and mitigate - its disadvantages (income inequality, win at any cost attitude, and excessive greed). The way to do that is reasonable and effective regulation and oversight.
Our history has shown time and again that gutting regulation to "unleash our job creators" just lets capitalism run amok (and make some people very greatly more wealthy at the expense of others).
In my opinion, the "less sober judgment" is probably because here in the USA, news has to be profitable. Scandal and confrontation sells papers (and gets eyeballs and clicks).
We have a capitalist economic system that has many advantages (innovation, independence, etc.), but we have to come to terms with - and mitigate - its disadvantages (income inequality, win at any cost attitude, and excessive greed). The way to do that is reasonable and effective regulation and oversight.
Our history has shown time and again that gutting regulation to "unleash our job creators" just lets capitalism run amok (and make some people very greatly more wealthy at the expense of others).
8
There were two important elements that saved Macron's campaign from the silliness that stuck to Hillary Clinton. The utterly sound ukase not to permit campaigning or reporting immediately before election day. Giving it a rest must have seemed like the end of the bombing, when the silence startled Anne Frank.
The other thing is, Macron's campaign was ready for the hacking. They posted several nonsense syllables to their own account to confuse the hackers and that worked well enough to damp down the explosion.
But let's not anticipate hacks. Let's stop the practice with more secure systems. I blame manufacturers and developers.
The other thing is, Macron's campaign was ready for the hacking. They posted several nonsense syllables to their own account to confuse the hackers and that worked well enough to damp down the explosion.
But let's not anticipate hacks. Let's stop the practice with more secure systems. I blame manufacturers and developers.
I agree about the French media being a good model for us to follow. The American media's coverage of Hillary Clinton is, however, her fault, not the media's. Her message was tightly calibrated to not rock the boat in any way. She did not address America's horrendous inequality, using themes from a decade ago and running as a candidate from another time. She lost by herself.
2
Poor Marine Le Pen and the National Front. Per the French election system, they only had a few weeks to find a way to destroy Macrons reputation. And all without the assistance of a dedicated sophisticated conservative media "trumping" the message 24/7.
The GOP saw Clinton coming years ago. And had all the time they needed to marinate her before she was served to the voters. No one saw Macron as a threat until the last minute and the poor National front needed more time to set the negative narrative. And pound it into the voters head. Like we give our candidates.
The GOP saw Clinton coming years ago. And had all the time they needed to marinate her before she was served to the voters. No one saw Macron as a threat until the last minute and the poor National front needed more time to set the negative narrative. And pound it into the voters head. Like we give our candidates.
5
The US media literally gave the election to Trump free of charge. Every stupid thing he said or did - and we all know stupid is everything he did/does; Trump has never been burdened by wisdom - was newsworthy and big news to the media.
Next time, try to report the NEWS, not an endless diet of Trump-bites-dog stories.
Next time, try to report the NEWS, not an endless diet of Trump-bites-dog stories.
10
In France the "Populist" wave has crashed ashore and been beaten back by reason.
Maybe it's time to start calling "French Fries" "Freedom Fries" again?
Ironic?
Maybe it's time to start calling "French Fries" "Freedom Fries" again?
Ironic?
4
The US press chose to place full emphasis on Clinton without sharing full facts and emphasis on Trump's lack of knowledge, ignorance, and his hate filled bigoted rallies. You brutally persecuted her and laughed him off as a joke. The typical she's a woman he's a man in the good old boys club stereotypes. Guess what...the joke is now on us and its not funny at all. Barely past 100 days with how many more to go? I personally think the French observed our media roll over and said no thanks. I do hope US media learned a lesson but it came too late at the expense of our country and the world.
4
The French proved it takes two to tango. We would not have to worry about Russian hacking if we had a level headed press and electorate. Problem solved.
5
Democrats will cannot admit what was obvious to the rest of America. That the only reason Ms. Clinton set up and used a private email system was to hid her operation from public scrutiny, as required by the law! If she had used the state department email system she would have been elected! Her decision, her loss! Get over it!
6
And why did the Bush Whitehouse maintain a private server at the Republican National Committee from which they deleted millions of emails? Same explanation?
And why did Jeb Bush fail to turn over the emails from his private server from during his term as Governor until he was running for President?
And why did Pence and Powell use private servers while they were in office?
Have you actually read the emails from Clinton's time as Secretary of State? They are so mundane it is mind-numbing. There is nothing as spicy as even in Wikileaks. I don't hear you baying for Asange's arrest.
Perspective.
And why did Jeb Bush fail to turn over the emails from his private server from during his term as Governor until he was running for President?
And why did Pence and Powell use private servers while they were in office?
Have you actually read the emails from Clinton's time as Secretary of State? They are so mundane it is mind-numbing. There is nothing as spicy as even in Wikileaks. I don't hear you baying for Asange's arrest.
Perspective.
12
I disagree that the media's biggest mistake was concerning e-mails of any kind. The HUGEST mistake was the continuous speaking of the name "Donald Trump" with the never ending coverage of his every word, move, breath. Non-stop saying the name TRUMP...you, the media elected him!
Journalists know this--there is no such thing as bad publicity, just publicity. And you gave it to him. No matter the argument about thinking people or ideas, or his obvious dishonest clownish behavior, it does not matter. A constant barrage of the name DONALD TRUMP, and you elected him. Did you give equal coverage to Hilary Clinton? Did you follow her every word, etc...NO. Why? Because she was not as big a newsmaker as her opponent and you fell all over yourselves to report on him. Why didn't you ignore him? Because he was good for business. Your business.
Journalists know this--there is no such thing as bad publicity, just publicity. And you gave it to him. No matter the argument about thinking people or ideas, or his obvious dishonest clownish behavior, it does not matter. A constant barrage of the name DONALD TRUMP, and you elected him. Did you give equal coverage to Hilary Clinton? Did you follow her every word, etc...NO. Why? Because she was not as big a newsmaker as her opponent and you fell all over yourselves to report on him. Why didn't you ignore him? Because he was good for business. Your business.
6
The other lesson that should be learned from the French election is that a good candidate can win against what is euphemistically called a populist.. Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate and even though she won the popular vote. a better candidate might have won the electoral college as well
5
Yes, most of her email would be quite a boring reading experience. Fortunately, other people were willing to look through it. I have a feeling from your essay that you missed the email about Syria. It points to why we are so interested in that country. If you are interested, I could have a friend find it for you.
1
The self examination of the media's role in the lat Presidential election [David Leonhardt and others] is a good start but does not go far enough. As any good investigator will tell you: "Follow the Money". The media rating focus and scoop mentality combined with the human fascination to 'follow the shiny object" kept every inane TWEET front and center. The scandalous amount of free media during the 2016 primaries and election campaign which favored 45 made the media a tool of a savvy manipulator, not the Russians.
6
Secret Clinton emails, as you seem to deprecate in your column what they actually represented to many 2016 USA Presidential voters, were only the tip of the Democratic candidate's iceberg. Why was her performance as Secretary of State not given more objective scrutiny during the campaign?
Am I the only NYT reader who remembers that Hillary Clinton, the free-range chicken hawk, had no direct governmental oversight through the Office of Inspectors General? (Yes, I know there was an 'acting' IG, a watchpoodle if you will, but President Obama basically let her make up her own rules.) That is the main reason she was able to run her private email system outside of the Department of State. Five la France!
Am I the only NYT reader who remembers that Hillary Clinton, the free-range chicken hawk, had no direct governmental oversight through the Office of Inspectors General? (Yes, I know there was an 'acting' IG, a watchpoodle if you will, but President Obama basically let her make up her own rules.) That is the main reason she was able to run her private email system outside of the Department of State. Five la France!
3
Make that "Vive la France!" - darn auto-correct thinks I can't type in French.
Anyway, I'm happy for the election of "Macron the Unknown" even if most French voters were simply voting against Le Pen. (I don't expect her to crawl back under the pile of rocks she emerged from.)
The planet needs a unified and progressive Europe now more than ever.
Anyway, I'm happy for the election of "Macron the Unknown" even if most French voters were simply voting against Le Pen. (I don't expect her to crawl back under the pile of rocks she emerged from.)
The planet needs a unified and progressive Europe now more than ever.
In other words, hide the truth so that Hillary Clinton could slip into the white House. What bunk. The American people deserve to know the truth as far in advance of any election as is humanly possible. If it takes Wikileaks to reveal the truth that the Democrat party wishes to hide, then more power to Wikileaks. and shame on the French press which can no longer claim to be independent and impartial.
6
I think most of us would agree that France's media absolutely did 'exercise' better judgement than their American counterparts did in last year's election.
Get on the treadmill NYT and trim the fat.
Get on the treadmill NYT and trim the fat.
2
Another NYT article on emails and Hillary Clinton; why are you still not reporting on all the embarrassing antics of trump prior to the election. Russian hacking aside, the MSM failed to hold trump accountable for his many, many, can't say it enough, many flaming issues, from his birther campaign, against President Obama to his tax issues and family businesses. The media continually harped on Mrs. Clinton without fully covering any of Trumps major scandals. As potus, you are still normalizing someone who is enriching himself and his family, while the American people are paying the price. When will you move on from emails to today facts, that today's egregious trump family business is far greater then the post emails of Hillary Clinton.
3
Americans can be happy they voted in Trump to save the world from Hillary's email server.
Now you say this???? The media, of which you are a part, helped create the worse reality TV election coverage we've ever been forced to endure. Not one of you ever asked trump to define what America being great again actually means. You buried the growing Russia scandal. You served as Trumps megaphone so his 'brand' filled our airwaves. You, the media, we're accomplices in making one scandal about an email server larger than life while barely covering dozens of Trump scandal beyond one of your precious news cycles. And what about that Trump server in PA receiving data in from Russia? What about all his lawsuits? What about the women who spoke out about sexual harrassment? One issue in People mag and nothing since... we need JOURNALISTS. Where are our Woodward and Bernstein? Enough with broadcasting his stupid tweets. Investigate and get the whole story, get the truth out. Clearly the GOP congress is not going to pursue the truth. They have shown that they will
be divert, blame, impede, stall, and detract. They even interfere. We are counting on the media to do journalism again. Make up for 2016, please.
be divert, blame, impede, stall, and detract. They even interfere. We are counting on the media to do journalism again. Make up for 2016, please.
5
Seems like every reporter here is always looking for the next -gate scandal that will bring down a big politician.
1
American press caters to the candidate who sells papers (or moreover, click through, etc.). And if the candidate can express his message without getting bogged down in facts and policy matter, all the better. The cult of personality sells. Anything else is deemed too boring for American attention span. If you don't believe me, ask Adlai Stevenson.
The NYT published an article based on a Harvard study that stated that the media dragged Trump's campaign out of the tinfoil hat ghetto it belongs in and more or less gave it validation. Everyone hedged their bets by criticizing his campaign, which just became more publicity. The Times and the media at large never did what it should have done: pulled back. Made The Donald pay for every piece of publicity. Instead they handed him free publicity by the truckload. They did the same thing n 2000, when they gave G.W. Bush the presidency by ignoring his opponent, Whatsisname (In 2008 the only thing standing between the media's and the Sarah Palin presidency was John McCain). They didn't do their job then or now.
The NYT published an article based on a Harvard study that stated that the media dragged Trump's campaign out of the tinfoil hat ghetto it belongs in and more or less gave it validation. Everyone hedged their bets by criticizing his campaign, which just became more publicity. The Times and the media at large never did what it should have done: pulled back. Made The Donald pay for every piece of publicity. Instead they handed him free publicity by the truckload. They did the same thing n 2000, when they gave G.W. Bush the presidency by ignoring his opponent, Whatsisname (In 2008 the only thing standing between the media's and the Sarah Palin presidency was John McCain). They didn't do their job then or now.
6
I do wonder. Did Mrs. Clinton set up a private e-mail server because diplomacy is at bottom just wheeling and dealing, and she needed privacy for that? Is there any other way to run diplomacy?
Or was it because on the side she was doing deals that needed to be concealed because they involved Clinton interests (sometimes coinciding with state business)?
I think much of it was just the ordinary work of real diplomacy, operating on the basis of confidential deals between big players. And then maybe a little bit was that temptation of hers and Bill's to consider themselves entitled to privilege, wealth or insider status.
You have to remember that the Bushes and Clintons were the royalty of Globalization, they were not only America's First Families, they were the world's. Must have been hard to keep a sense of proportion for the Clintons, who were far better at governing but also less used to power than the Bushes.
In any case, the election was Mrs. Clinton's to lose and it was the complacency of entitlement that lost it -- the Wall Street speeches never revealed, the server denied then poorly explained and defended, the bloated campaign organization.
The press and their bullying, baiting, baying ways, that is a known quantity.
She served up a menu of scandals and misjudged calls.
Then we had that dog's dinner of an election.
But man, the price we are paying for all this. Frightening.
The democracy should have learned to self-govern better in two hundred and forty years.
Or was it because on the side she was doing deals that needed to be concealed because they involved Clinton interests (sometimes coinciding with state business)?
I think much of it was just the ordinary work of real diplomacy, operating on the basis of confidential deals between big players. And then maybe a little bit was that temptation of hers and Bill's to consider themselves entitled to privilege, wealth or insider status.
You have to remember that the Bushes and Clintons were the royalty of Globalization, they were not only America's First Families, they were the world's. Must have been hard to keep a sense of proportion for the Clintons, who were far better at governing but also less used to power than the Bushes.
In any case, the election was Mrs. Clinton's to lose and it was the complacency of entitlement that lost it -- the Wall Street speeches never revealed, the server denied then poorly explained and defended, the bloated campaign organization.
The press and their bullying, baiting, baying ways, that is a known quantity.
She served up a menu of scandals and misjudged calls.
Then we had that dog's dinner of an election.
But man, the price we are paying for all this. Frightening.
The democracy should have learned to self-govern better in two hundred and forty years.
1
That "dog's dinner" of an election was served up by Chef Trump with a huge word salad topped with Russian dressing.
2
Yeah, there are many journalists that aggressively pursue the truth. George Stephanopoulos and Chuck Todd come to mind. They have been relentless at times when interviewing people from Trump's inner circle.
But I agree with Mr. Leonhardt's point. The media did a disservice to the nation in the way it covered Hillary Clinton, and ratings and advertising dollars trumped the balanced reporting that was much needed.
Clinton may have been an "imperfect" candidate - I don't even know what that really is supposed to mean - but when people say they voted for Trump because he was the lesser of two evils, my jaw hits the floor. Can't help but think how different these past 107 days would have been had Clinton taken the White House. Elections do matter.
But I agree with Mr. Leonhardt's point. The media did a disservice to the nation in the way it covered Hillary Clinton, and ratings and advertising dollars trumped the balanced reporting that was much needed.
Clinton may have been an "imperfect" candidate - I don't even know what that really is supposed to mean - but when people say they voted for Trump because he was the lesser of two evils, my jaw hits the floor. Can't help but think how different these past 107 days would have been had Clinton taken the White House. Elections do matter.
4
The emails were illegally obtained.That should've been enough reason to not feast on them. Instead the media made them their number one story and Wikileaks became the hero of the Trump team.Shame on all.
4
You lost me here:
Even the worst revelation — a Democratic official and CNN contributor fed a town hall question to the campaign in advance — qualified as small beer. Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign engaged in much more consequential debate skulduggery.
Just cause we seemingly gave up on accountability and prosecuting crimes against the constitution and the people DOES NOT MEAN we should continue that slippery slope and the loss of our democracy.
Even the worst revelation — a Democratic official and CNN contributor fed a town hall question to the campaign in advance — qualified as small beer. Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign engaged in much more consequential debate skulduggery.
Just cause we seemingly gave up on accountability and prosecuting crimes against the constitution and the people DOES NOT MEAN we should continue that slippery slope and the loss of our democracy.
3
E-mails really are small beer compared to Trump's chosen administrators having secret meetings with Russian intelligence officers.
Where is the special prosecutor?
Where is the special prosecutor?
Touchez! I invite other readers to compare coverage of political issues in commercial media and C-Span. As usual, what receives most attention in commercial media (on both sides of the political sprectrum), I suspect, is largely what attracts more viewers and thus receives more commercial support. Money makes the world go around. What is new? In C-Span the coverage is far more balanced, measured, and certain issues are left out all-together. Am I being unfair?
How refreshing to learn of the French restraint.
PS Furthermore, when you look at the add's on your preferred stations, you can tell something about what kind of company you are in. Interesting?
How refreshing to learn of the French restraint.
PS Furthermore, when you look at the add's on your preferred stations, you can tell something about what kind of company you are in. Interesting?
Over time, the media has changed. FDR was confined much of his presidency to a wheel chair but it was never shown or even discussed by the media. Kennedy was involved in sexual affairs that were glossed over and not documented. In fact many presidents were involved in extra curricular sexual affairs that were kept isolated.
Were their infidelities wrong, should they have been reveled, probably. But the point here is that the media has evolved to a competition over who can broadcast the biggest bad news headline. This was originated with the pulp tabloids in Britain and has been expanded in the US by Fox news and taken up by all main stream media.
The result was the election of Trump. The one benefit we have realized from Trumps accession has been that main stream media has gotten tired of main streaming his continued tweets that are riddled with half truths, lies and accusations. The real bad news is that we have a president that is more interested in shooting the messenger than he is in the message. The liar in chief has sunk world wide respect of America to a new low.
Were their infidelities wrong, should they have been reveled, probably. But the point here is that the media has evolved to a competition over who can broadcast the biggest bad news headline. This was originated with the pulp tabloids in Britain and has been expanded in the US by Fox news and taken up by all main stream media.
The result was the election of Trump. The one benefit we have realized from Trumps accession has been that main stream media has gotten tired of main streaming his continued tweets that are riddled with half truths, lies and accusations. The real bad news is that we have a president that is more interested in shooting the messenger than he is in the message. The liar in chief has sunk world wide respect of America to a new low.
3
In other words, we have Rupert Murdoch to blame. I am very much bothered by the fact that an Australian or any foreign national is allowed to own newspapers and television media in another country, but especially in ours, and Influence our elections and policy by what he chooses to print. Is anyone else as disturbed by this as I am?
6
Wende ~
Your comment is spot on!! Mr. Murdoch has done more to pollute our democratic process than any force outside of the right wing hijacking of AM/FM Radio. You'd think it would ring alarm bells Nationwide that this Australian outsider has been allowed to corner our American Media market..but then again..Look at how Mr. Putin bought the Presidency of Mr. Trump quite handily.
Your comment is spot on!! Mr. Murdoch has done more to pollute our democratic process than any force outside of the right wing hijacking of AM/FM Radio. You'd think it would ring alarm bells Nationwide that this Australian outsider has been allowed to corner our American Media market..but then again..Look at how Mr. Putin bought the Presidency of Mr. Trump quite handily.
1
I wish that the media would stop doing politics and focus in on policy discussions. I don't care so much about their ideas about the political feasibility of a person's behavior. But I do need input on the policy positions of politicians.
1
It's actually quite disturbing to read comments here and elsewhere that we should have some kind of media blackout law. While such sentiments are understandable after what happened in November, it strikes me as biting off our nose in spite of our face. The key to a working democracy is more transparency and more information, not less. The key is educating the public how to differentiate real and useful information from propaganda and fake news. Not easy, for sure. I despise Fox News and think our media did a terrible job covering the election. But saying we should not allow news outlets to broadcast any news is like telling a doctor not to tell his patient that he's sick.
The French news blackout was only for 24 hours, hardly a burden on the media.
The British have a good idea, too, in not allowing election season until 6 weeks before the election, and not allowing "big money" to dominate the campaign coverage. We used to have something like that once - it was called "The Fairness Doctrine".
The British have a good idea, too, in not allowing election season until 6 weeks before the election, and not allowing "big money" to dominate the campaign coverage. We used to have something like that once - it was called "The Fairness Doctrine".
Time to start looking forward and stop looking backwards. The future is what matters, yes learn from the past but move on. Spending hours discussing what went wrong is not needed, address the things that can be addressed but quickly and efficiently. Many of us are tired of reading the same old stuff without any plans for achieving what is important.
Democrats need to think more about who the emerging leaders are and how to support them now as they begin their political efforts. Help them become the needed leadership that will be needed in 2020.
The old guard should stop thinking about how to advance themselves and how they can mentor and help these upcoming leaders. Baby boomers stop being selfish and contribute money and support to the new guard.
Democrats need to think more about who the emerging leaders are and how to support them now as they begin their political efforts. Help them become the needed leadership that will be needed in 2020.
The old guard should stop thinking about how to advance themselves and how they can mentor and help these upcoming leaders. Baby boomers stop being selfish and contribute money and support to the new guard.
I wouldn't blame so much the American media. Voters are also supposed to share part of the responsibility for an election.
On the other hand, you can find some dumb people out there, but not so many. I guess a vast majority of voters for Trump had a number of reasons for their choice.
The big trouble with Trump in the U.S., or Le Pen in France, is they point out some *real* problems past politicians have failed to solve or even address. You can argue these "populist" candidates offer smoke, false promises or wrong solutions. But also, on a rational basis, how could you trust a candidate who represents past ineffective policies?
Moreover, how could you trust a President who is suspected to be careless, or even neglected the truth? I have always appreciated how much American voters value the fact that their President is not a liar. That's what trust is based upon.
If Mr. Trump is ever impeached, it will probably happen because he has been caught in a lie.
Anyway, Hillary Clinton probably received more damage from their Democrat opponents than from media beating her face 'cause her email affair. However, Republican candidates where generous enough to shatter themselves to pieces so Mr. Trump had a free way to represent his party on the Presidential election.
On the other hand, you can find some dumb people out there, but not so many. I guess a vast majority of voters for Trump had a number of reasons for their choice.
The big trouble with Trump in the U.S., or Le Pen in France, is they point out some *real* problems past politicians have failed to solve or even address. You can argue these "populist" candidates offer smoke, false promises or wrong solutions. But also, on a rational basis, how could you trust a candidate who represents past ineffective policies?
Moreover, how could you trust a President who is suspected to be careless, or even neglected the truth? I have always appreciated how much American voters value the fact that their President is not a liar. That's what trust is based upon.
If Mr. Trump is ever impeached, it will probably happen because he has been caught in a lie.
Anyway, Hillary Clinton probably received more damage from their Democrat opponents than from media beating her face 'cause her email affair. However, Republican candidates where generous enough to shatter themselves to pieces so Mr. Trump had a free way to represent his party on the Presidential election.
And yet, the American media seem not to learn. Their intense focus on breaking news, a continued adherence to false equivalency in reporting in the name of fairness, a seeming inability to edit out or properly label nonsense, noise and lies for what they are, leads them--and us--down a breathless path of confusion. In such an environment, journalists and news consumers alike lose all sense of judgment and proportion. Thus, for many, Trump's candidacy of non-stop outrageous lies and outrageous behavior collectively became reduced to no worse than the truly minor saga of Clinton's emails.
The Trump candidacy of non-stop confusion played the U.S. news media for suckers. Trump as president continues to do so. If any one of Trump's or his administration's countless outrageous lies, whether via the president's Twitter account or Sean Spicer's daily circus of absurdity, were spoken by any other president or administration, it would dominate the news for weeks if not months.
The media's attention span seems no greater than Trump's, and that's a problem.
The Trump candidacy of non-stop confusion played the U.S. news media for suckers. Trump as president continues to do so. If any one of Trump's or his administration's countless outrageous lies, whether via the president's Twitter account or Sean Spicer's daily circus of absurdity, were spoken by any other president or administration, it would dominate the news for weeks if not months.
The media's attention span seems no greater than Trump's, and that's a problem.
4
One expression used during the campaign by political commentators and even professors of political science was "the lesser of two evils." I hope never to hear this again. Although Hillary Clinton got herself into political difficulties I still don't know what she did that could qualify as "evil." If this expression was meant to be "only a manner of speaking" for these commentators it represented the sloppy substitute for thinking that Orwell warned us about.
3
"Even the worst revelation — a Democratic official and CNN contributor fed a town hall question to the campaign in advance — qualified as small beer.'
Tell that to Bernie Sanders.
The leaked emails showed a systematic approach by the DNC to sway the election toward HRC. And they reinforced the concern many Americans had that Ms. Clinton's own email scandal had the potential to jeopardize American secrecy and security, not to mention suspicions that Clinton Incorporated was just a way for the Clintons to enrich themselves at our expense.
Other than that, you're spot on about the similarities between the France affairs and what happened to the Clintons last year.
Tell that to Bernie Sanders.
The leaked emails showed a systematic approach by the DNC to sway the election toward HRC. And they reinforced the concern many Americans had that Ms. Clinton's own email scandal had the potential to jeopardize American secrecy and security, not to mention suspicions that Clinton Incorporated was just a way for the Clintons to enrich themselves at our expense.
Other than that, you're spot on about the similarities between the France affairs and what happened to the Clintons last year.
3
I live in Michigan and the town hall meeting you refer to was in Flint. The ghastly heads-up that was "fed" to Clinton was that she would be asked a question about the mercury contamination of Flint water.
3
And what did the Russian hacking reveal to you? Don't you think contacts between the Republican candidate's campaign people and Russian intelligence operatives rated just a tiny bit more on the "sinister" side than a leaked debate question?
2
What was shameful is that even historically more level headed news outlets including those that endorsed Clinton got in the act. I have never seen either Charlie Rose or Tavis Smiley treat an interviewee with disdain and in Charlie Rose's case that includes dictators. But both could barely conceal their disgust as if that had become a requirement for anyone interviewing Hillary Clinton. I watched as she tried to talk about issues only to have the conversation repeatedly turned back to emails. When hacks released DNC emails and speeches, they confirmed that all was well. Where the media saw an awful suggestion that religion be used against Bernie Sanders, I saw a campaign that rejected that idea...that is why we didn't know anything about it!
Post election she is blamed for not talking about issues that people care about. Believe me, she tried. Other countries look at us as a cautionary tale as well they should. Americans' priorities are warped.
Post election she is blamed for not talking about issues that people care about. Believe me, she tried. Other countries look at us as a cautionary tale as well they should. Americans' priorities are warped.
4
Thank you so much for making this distinction between the way the US and French media handled email hacks. It's so important that US media not continue in its habit of thinking that anything that potentially garners interest and creates buzz is inherently newsworthy.
2
France has better education system. Everything else is a side effect.
6
Hindsight is 20/20. Too bad no one warned is that Russia might interfere and that this was one tactic. BUT I completely agree that the email issue seem a non-issue given the issues we have with the new President. Now that the media is aware of what Russia can do, mirror what France did and stop them..
3
And there are the other things the media (I mean all media) did very wrong:
1) Repeating over and over again that voters did not trust Clinton until is finally became true. Without that there wouldn't be a horse race.
2) Giving Trump constant, preemptive, free publicity when he made ridiculous, inflammatory statements. Never considering that this stuff wasn't worthy of print.
3) And, of course, repeating Trump's accusations about Clinton's emails over and over again each time he said "lock her up".
1) Repeating over and over again that voters did not trust Clinton until is finally became true. Without that there wouldn't be a horse race.
2) Giving Trump constant, preemptive, free publicity when he made ridiculous, inflammatory statements. Never considering that this stuff wasn't worthy of print.
3) And, of course, repeating Trump's accusations about Clinton's emails over and over again each time he said "lock her up".
4
When it comes to their news outlets, especially televised ones, Americans are truly frogs in boiling water. Most just don't see the awfulness of what's going on anymore--focus on trivialities, talking heads speaking over each other, very little intelligent, reasonable discussion of issues. The public isn't informed, it's yanked this way and that by manipulative spokespeople programmed with specious talking points. When I visit the US and am forced to spend time in front of CNN (to say nothing of FOX), I'm appalled at the lack of reason on display. The country would be better going back to a dry, thirty-minute fact bulletin from Walter Cronkite once a day.
3
David Leonhard's articles makes assumptions without evidence regarding Hillary Clinton and The Russian Hack.
Firstly, contrary to Leonhardt, the DNC hacked server contained emails that sought to undermine the Sanders's campaign. The emails weren't harmless.
Secondly , all the intelligence folks (with the exception of Clapper who seen' no evidence of Russian Collusion in the election) say the Russians did it. Hillary Clinton spread this tale as an excuse for her loss to Trump. And that story continues to have legs (albeit sans evidence). Trump critics see "Trump as Russian spy" as a way of getting rid of the man , and I say good riddance. But , alas, we may get rid of Trump and have the prospect of war with Russia. A Faustian bargain to be sure.
In saner times we could stick with the probably true tale of a disgruntled DNC who leaked to Wikileaks and who was subsequently murdered --there's a good story there but no one wants to touch it because it might absolve Trump of the crime of being a Russian spy.
Firstly, contrary to Leonhardt, the DNC hacked server contained emails that sought to undermine the Sanders's campaign. The emails weren't harmless.
Secondly , all the intelligence folks (with the exception of Clapper who seen' no evidence of Russian Collusion in the election) say the Russians did it. Hillary Clinton spread this tale as an excuse for her loss to Trump. And that story continues to have legs (albeit sans evidence). Trump critics see "Trump as Russian spy" as a way of getting rid of the man , and I say good riddance. But , alas, we may get rid of Trump and have the prospect of war with Russia. A Faustian bargain to be sure.
In saner times we could stick with the probably true tale of a disgruntled DNC who leaked to Wikileaks and who was subsequently murdered --there's a good story there but no one wants to touch it because it might absolve Trump of the crime of being a Russian spy.
2
"Probably true tales". Says a lot.
1
No one is saying Trump is a Russian spy. But he or some of his top people may be compromised by a well-oiled Russian intelligence service doing what they do best -gaining leverage over an official to force him to advance their agenda.
This needs to be investigated by a special prosecutor, because the US cannot have its policies dictated by an unfriendly foreign government. Period.
This needs to be investigated by a special prosecutor, because the US cannot have its policies dictated by an unfriendly foreign government. Period.
1
"When hackers released Emmanuel Macron’s spectacularly mundane emails, the French media exercised better judgment than their American counterparts did in last year’s election."
The French exercise better judgment in everything.
The French exercise better judgment in everything.
4
French voters in general are better-informed than their American counterparts, which leads me to believe they'd see the hacked emails as an attempt to mislead the public, and they'd largely ignore them. French journalists knew this, and acted accordingly. Problem solved.
3
France learned from USA and from Brexit while both USA and Britain did not see the outcome of their own elections.
1
As a former IT Director who has technologically enabled many busy executives to combine personal and top secret company business safely, let me go out on a limb here and say that far from a mistake, Clinton made a sound decision to use a private server. Result:
1. Her server, unlike government servers, was not hacked, because it was much less accessible to password stealing
2. She could be far more efficient in handling her mountains of emails than other government execs who did not have this tool - this is the main reason Colin Powell, among many others, chose to do the same
3. Absolutely no harm came to our country from this practice, while we benefited from a more efficient government executive
As usual with journalists who do not have the time or willingness to understand the realities of modern technology, they wrote about this subject to dumb it down and sensationize it up to attract readers ($).
One job I had before I went into the private sector was to run the vote counting systems in Ohio. During one election night, the system balked due to a technical bug. I am a strong believer in transparency and access, so I went to the media room immediately. My first request to the journalists was simply to hear me out, and to report exactly what I said. I will be forever grateful to the journalists assembled in Columbus Ohio that night, for honoring my request, listening carefully to my answers, and reporting only the dull facts of a bug that was soon fixed.
1. Her server, unlike government servers, was not hacked, because it was much less accessible to password stealing
2. She could be far more efficient in handling her mountains of emails than other government execs who did not have this tool - this is the main reason Colin Powell, among many others, chose to do the same
3. Absolutely no harm came to our country from this practice, while we benefited from a more efficient government executive
As usual with journalists who do not have the time or willingness to understand the realities of modern technology, they wrote about this subject to dumb it down and sensationize it up to attract readers ($).
One job I had before I went into the private sector was to run the vote counting systems in Ohio. During one election night, the system balked due to a technical bug. I am a strong believer in transparency and access, so I went to the media room immediately. My first request to the journalists was simply to hear me out, and to report exactly what I said. I will be forever grateful to the journalists assembled in Columbus Ohio that night, for honoring my request, listening carefully to my answers, and reporting only the dull facts of a bug that was soon fixed.
5
I inhabit an alternate reality, where the corporate media thought to protect themselves and their candidate by over-emphasizing the trivial email story so they wouldn't have to report on the potentially much more damaging issues of the inherent corruption of the Clinton Foundation and Mrs Clinton's refusal to release the transcripts of her mind-bogglingly well remunerated speeches to Wall Street execs. Of course none of us expected HRC to throw the election with her 'deplorables' gaffe.
We have lost our way. We live in a country that does not value public education. We live in a world of tweets, social media and FAUX news. We no longer have a sense of community abandoning that concept for "every man for himself". We are a nation in its decline.
24
And now, if it's good for Trump, so goes Hillary, who has 'taken to tweeting'.
Sure - because readers never can be trusted to draw their own conclusions.
Self-censorship advocated by totalitarian regimes is scary - when it is advocated by a journalist - it becomes horrifying.
Self-censorship advocated by totalitarian regimes is scary - when it is advocated by a journalist - it becomes horrifying.
"Despite the mundane quality of the Clinton emails, the media covered them as a profound revelation." And the NEW YORK TIMES WAS ONE OF THE WORST OFFENDERS.
Ditto Comey's treasonous actions late in the campaign. Several analysts have by this point shown that without a shadow of a doubt, Comey's treason was the one indisputable, completely documented and verifiable cause of Trump's coup.
First the NYT gave us Iraq, and now Trump. Oh, and Bret Stephens. Hahahahahaha... "All the News We're Told to Print."
Ditto Comey's treasonous actions late in the campaign. Several analysts have by this point shown that without a shadow of a doubt, Comey's treason was the one indisputable, completely documented and verifiable cause of Trump's coup.
First the NYT gave us Iraq, and now Trump. Oh, and Bret Stephens. Hahahahahaha... "All the News We're Told to Print."
The core of the issue is that media is largely run by corporations that demand ratings to draw advertising dollars. This model needs to attract readers that generally are too distracted to digest an in-depth article. It is an unfortunate paradigm; viewers are more likely to tune into the bubble-heads on CNN rather than watch News Hour on PBS
12
Claim your role in pushing the Clinton email story. NY Times "reporters" howled incessantly about it, like hounds on crack.
14
You've got one fourth of the story.
Part 1 is the MSM/NYT's amazingly excessive coverage of Trump. You couldn't get enough of him. He always led the lead column and three or four stories down. I bet some people didn't even GET to the email stories. Yes, the content was negative, but it was fee publicity and that's how he won.
Second was the ABSENCE of positive stories about the Dems, or any substantive coverage of the election. It was treated as a horserace and the people voted as if it were one.
Third the emails and the Hampdens, next to no positive coverage after an endorsement.
You did it and I frequently remarked about it in the comments section.
I was a reluctant Hillary voter, but I deleted all your Trump news.
Part 1 is the MSM/NYT's amazingly excessive coverage of Trump. You couldn't get enough of him. He always led the lead column and three or four stories down. I bet some people didn't even GET to the email stories. Yes, the content was negative, but it was fee publicity and that's how he won.
Second was the ABSENCE of positive stories about the Dems, or any substantive coverage of the election. It was treated as a horserace and the people voted as if it were one.
Third the emails and the Hampdens, next to no positive coverage after an endorsement.
You did it and I frequently remarked about it in the comments section.
I was a reluctant Hillary voter, but I deleted all your Trump news.
12
@CK: Exactly! And they"re still doing it. Virtually everyday, every online version the lead story is about Trump - and his name appears all over the front page, often 9 or 10 times a day. Most of it negative, of course, but to a real estate salesman, or anybody on Madison Avenue, all publicity is good publicity. If he has a patent on his name, he'd be billions of dollars richer on royalties for all the newspapers and TV news shows using it to attract readers, sell copy and increase ad revenue.
2
You've got it backwards. Fake news don't fall on fertile ground in France, not because of better laws, but because white nationalism is still considered extreme in most quarters.
Conversely, in the English speaking world, the Murdoch Group feeds off the wide-spread sentiment that white English speaking people are innately superior, which is why obnoxiously racist pamphlets like Churchill's "History of the English Speaking People" is still considered a great classic, and popular culture can glorify war, flag waving patriotism, and de-humanize America's and Britain's enemies. Just face it, since the 1970's even oh-so-liberal Hollywood has cultivated a fascist streak in American popular culture, which has finally come to fruition.
Conversely, in the English speaking world, the Murdoch Group feeds off the wide-spread sentiment that white English speaking people are innately superior, which is why obnoxiously racist pamphlets like Churchill's "History of the English Speaking People" is still considered a great classic, and popular culture can glorify war, flag waving patriotism, and de-humanize America's and Britain's enemies. Just face it, since the 1970's even oh-so-liberal Hollywood has cultivated a fascist streak in American popular culture, which has finally come to fruition.
3
Sorry Mr. Leonhardt, but the biggest offender in the e-mail story was the NY Times and it extended it's 25 year record of slandering the Clintons with breathless coverage of non-scandals. Once again, the Times thought it had some breaking story and ran it into the ground and to this day refuses to acknowledge it. The Republicans have figured out how you can be played, with timely releases of "new" information that gets published on the front page while the exoneration 2 weeks later ends up on page 13. Please gaze into the mirror.
10
VIVE the French Press ! Soooo different from the YELLOW journalist's of the ALT LEFT in America……………………e.g.: The New York Times !
1
Journalists too often hide their sensationalism behind idealism, playing to notions that even ignoble intentions can serve the pursuit of truth. We, the public, suffer as scoops become the end in themselves. A candidate skilled in manipulating media can easily feed that impulse, and in fact did.
Throighout the campaign I repeatedly heard assertions about Donald Trump's seat-of-the-pants plans and announcements. Secretary Clinton's plans, which were mch more detailed and researched, went unreported. Or worse, considered less important than Benghazi emails, emails Benghazi, pants suits Bengazhi!!!
It's dispiriting.
Throighout the campaign I repeatedly heard assertions about Donald Trump's seat-of-the-pants plans and announcements. Secretary Clinton's plans, which were mch more detailed and researched, went unreported. Or worse, considered less important than Benghazi emails, emails Benghazi, pants suits Bengazhi!!!
It's dispiriting.
3
It is important to consider this column in light of the call for a shakeup of the DNC and the people who represent the Democrats. We've been out matched by the GOP at every turn and will be for some time in the future. Understanding why this is the case is probably the most important issue for the world at large given climate change's reach and the GOP's call to "drill, baby drill."
Was it because the media space is owned by corporations with no moral compass? Surely, that is the case in France too. The public of the two nations are equally interested in scandal. My guess is that it was because the candidates were substantially different. The GOP machine had been working on Clinton for decades and Macaron was a newcomer. The DNC should have known better than to throw it's weight for Clinton over Sanders. So, given the current state of our media space and the well oiled GOP machine, the Democrats need to be squeaky clean and charismatic to lead the world into the post Trump era. That's a tall order but there seem to be a lot of women who are realizing there's no choice. Someone close to Sally Yates please ask her to run for office!
Was it because the media space is owned by corporations with no moral compass? Surely, that is the case in France too. The public of the two nations are equally interested in scandal. My guess is that it was because the candidates were substantially different. The GOP machine had been working on Clinton for decades and Macaron was a newcomer. The DNC should have known better than to throw it's weight for Clinton over Sanders. So, given the current state of our media space and the well oiled GOP machine, the Democrats need to be squeaky clean and charismatic to lead the world into the post Trump era. That's a tall order but there seem to be a lot of women who are realizing there's no choice. Someone close to Sally Yates please ask her to run for office!
Only one other thing to mention here: Obama is a liability at this point. He's become condescending, hypocritical and self righteous. If the Democratic party is smart, which is in great question, it will not allow his voice to be the main voice of the party. His time is over. He's hurting, not helping. He's defending his legacy and in reality cares very little about the people. He only cares about the people's love of him, which was largely an illusion of a messed up system. He too was the lessor of two evils.
2
The American media's obsession with the "horse race" side of an election lies at the heart of this problem. Who's up, who's down (who cares)? If coverage focused more intently on policy differences among the candidates--and stayed focused--the better candidate would almost always get the better press. The fact that Paul Ryan, who had virtually no plan for health care reform, could manage to lead the charge for years against "Obamacare," continue to get reelected, become Speaker, then slither past us all with this monstrosity of a bill the House just passed attests to how content-free most political press coverage is. Quel dommage.
5
Ladyrantsalot
True, true, true. That the press continues to refer to Ryan as some kind of economist and wonder boy baffles me. He has a B.A. for heaven's sake. He has very modest credentials. In whatever other profession does that qualify for much of anything? Psychology? Nope. Social work? Nope. Medicine? Nope. Law? Nope. Engineering? Nope.
Really, would you hire someone with a B.A. in art or anything to build a bridge? No, you would hire someone with at least a master's degree in architecture.
Ryan is a political hack with extremely rich patrons backing him. Otherwise, he would be on the backbench where he belongs.
True, true, true. That the press continues to refer to Ryan as some kind of economist and wonder boy baffles me. He has a B.A. for heaven's sake. He has very modest credentials. In whatever other profession does that qualify for much of anything? Psychology? Nope. Social work? Nope. Medicine? Nope. Law? Nope. Engineering? Nope.
Really, would you hire someone with a B.A. in art or anything to build a bridge? No, you would hire someone with at least a master's degree in architecture.
Ryan is a political hack with extremely rich patrons backing him. Otherwise, he would be on the backbench where he belongs.
1
The French election has brought something to mind. Yes, there’s fact that they have a functioning democracy, and a thinking electorate. But I’m referring to a fictional French character.
For some reason, a musical’s number ran through my head this morning: C’est Moi! Perhaps I get Comey a bit better now. Maybe he’s our modern day Sir Lancelot. No, not the bright and shining Lance. He’s the flawed Lance of the Camelot story, whose conceit of perfection and righteousness led him to contribute to the fall of that fictional experiment. Lance never planned or wanted it, but somehow he ended up on the side of the pretenders to the throne, who today have names like Mercer, Koch, Scaife, and DeVos.
We can still be hopeful, as we live here inside the mess Comey felt he had to handle, wondering how many doors we’re looking at, and whether we little people will ever get a choice. We can, at least, be thankful that our Camelot is not necessarily finished yet. It may still be a few days until that final battle, with the possibility that all will be fought out in maddeningly tenuous and slow legal maneuvers. But behind another door is certainly the path to the end of the human race. Like that old Camelot, we little people will simply get to die, while the powerful and righteous dream of their ascension and reward from God. They’d better be right about their fate, because we’ve beaten our swords into ballistic missiles, and there will be no next battle and no further Camelot.
For some reason, a musical’s number ran through my head this morning: C’est Moi! Perhaps I get Comey a bit better now. Maybe he’s our modern day Sir Lancelot. No, not the bright and shining Lance. He’s the flawed Lance of the Camelot story, whose conceit of perfection and righteousness led him to contribute to the fall of that fictional experiment. Lance never planned or wanted it, but somehow he ended up on the side of the pretenders to the throne, who today have names like Mercer, Koch, Scaife, and DeVos.
We can still be hopeful, as we live here inside the mess Comey felt he had to handle, wondering how many doors we’re looking at, and whether we little people will ever get a choice. We can, at least, be thankful that our Camelot is not necessarily finished yet. It may still be a few days until that final battle, with the possibility that all will be fought out in maddeningly tenuous and slow legal maneuvers. But behind another door is certainly the path to the end of the human race. Like that old Camelot, we little people will simply get to die, while the powerful and righteous dream of their ascension and reward from God. They’d better be right about their fate, because we’ve beaten our swords into ballistic missiles, and there will be no next battle and no further Camelot.
3
Oops. Just read that Comey may have intentionally misspoken (lied) about emails being forwarded to Abedin/Weiner laptop. I guess I've just been fishing around for some sanity and peace of mind in this sh!t sandwich of a world. But unlike Comey, I know how to quickly admit a mistake.
It sounds like he might like to think of himself as Camelot's Lancelot character (which would explain his self righteous but destructive behaviors). But now I'm thinking of how well he mimics the character of Mordred. You've got a long (impossible?) road to dig out of your mess, Mr. Comey.
It sounds like he might like to think of himself as Camelot's Lancelot character (which would explain his self righteous but destructive behaviors). But now I'm thinking of how well he mimics the character of Mordred. You've got a long (impossible?) road to dig out of your mess, Mr. Comey.
2
The subject of journalistic integrity in the USA could be debated for eons. Having experienced foreign media while residing overseas on business, on my return home I did notice a profound difference and how abrasive, crude and the general lack of respect and ethical conduct, that some of the news media conducted themselves. Although we cherish the rights under the first amendment, those rights should not be abused and turned into slander, character assassination and spreading of malicious disinformation just in order to gain a headline. There has to be some kind of accountability or a middle ground before a libel suit occurs.
6
During the election there were commentators on a supposedly neutral cable news station who were more interested in throwing out "gotcha" questions rather than asking questions to inform the public. Their claim was that they were being equally hard on both sides. But the duty of journalists is to inform the public, not to jab at candidates and their surrogates for the sake of sensationalism. I often contacted the station about this, but received no reply.
The freedom of the press is in our constitution in order to keep the public informed so that the public may vote and act based on important information. What the press did this past election was no better than what propaganda does, giving misinformation to the public."To say that the media was " abused and used" is a cop out. It was the media that "used and abused" its responsibility to the public in favor of preening anchors and sensationalism.
The press has always had extreme power to influence elections. Hillary was so popular after her time as Secretary of State and her response to Congress about Benghazi, yet the press kept hammering away that she was unlikeable during both of her runs until people I spoke to would say they didn't like her and couldn't give me any reasons why.
It is time for the press to separate from entertainment and act responsibly. Sean Spicer and Trump disrespect the press verbally and the press has put itself in a position that allows them to do it.
The freedom of the press is in our constitution in order to keep the public informed so that the public may vote and act based on important information. What the press did this past election was no better than what propaganda does, giving misinformation to the public."To say that the media was " abused and used" is a cop out. It was the media that "used and abused" its responsibility to the public in favor of preening anchors and sensationalism.
The press has always had extreme power to influence elections. Hillary was so popular after her time as Secretary of State and her response to Congress about Benghazi, yet the press kept hammering away that she was unlikeable during both of her runs until people I spoke to would say they didn't like her and couldn't give me any reasons why.
It is time for the press to separate from entertainment and act responsibly. Sean Spicer and Trump disrespect the press verbally and the press has put itself in a position that allows them to do it.
2
Mr. Leonhardt,
Thank you for shining a light on this. Of course the reasons for Clinton's loss are many, but I believe a huge one was the different standard Clinton and Trump were held to in the media and I really hope a lesson is learned here before the next election cycle, particularly by cable TV. I strongly recommend that their anchors - I'm thinking of people like Chuck Todd and the rest of the Sunday folks - travel to the UK and learn from them how to conduct a political interview that actually sheds light on important issues and holds a politician's feet to the fire.
Finally, you state that Clinton's private email server was a violation of government policy and I know that a judge agrees with you but I don't. My understanding is that there was no specific rule in place at the time that forbid State Dept officials from using a private server.
Thank you for shining a light on this. Of course the reasons for Clinton's loss are many, but I believe a huge one was the different standard Clinton and Trump were held to in the media and I really hope a lesson is learned here before the next election cycle, particularly by cable TV. I strongly recommend that their anchors - I'm thinking of people like Chuck Todd and the rest of the Sunday folks - travel to the UK and learn from them how to conduct a political interview that actually sheds light on important issues and holds a politician's feet to the fire.
Finally, you state that Clinton's private email server was a violation of government policy and I know that a judge agrees with you but I don't. My understanding is that there was no specific rule in place at the time that forbid State Dept officials from using a private server.
2
The media failed by not highlighting the continuous lying of Trump. A lie, is a lie, is a lie. There should be no free pass when a candidate for the U.S. presidency continuously lies. When Trump finally stated that Obama was a U.S. citizen, everyone gasped in relief. But, journalists and TV news never pushed Trump to explain why he insisted for four years that Obama was not an American. Trump should have been pushed until he gave an answer. But, the press jsut let it go. When Trump says the Obama wire tapped him during the campaign, the media just shrugs it off as just another Trump lie. These are only two examples of the most flagrant lies. The media just reports these lies as just another new story. No. No. No. It is not just another news story, and to treat these lies as just another news story is a journalism failure. These lies should get the ongoing large headline dominance that a hurricane Katrina, or the BP oil spill, or the Asian tsunami received. These lies twisted American public opinion, and the media was complicit in the deception. And the excuse used by the media is that they wished to do balanced reporting. No. No. No. This is not balance reporting. This is a dereliction of duty. Balanced reporting would be to highlight the fraudulent lies until the culprit fesses up. That is the duty of the free press and they failed in 2016 during the campaign and they continue to fail in 2017. Shame.
11
AMEN ! I have yet to see a thoughtful discussion of this by the media. I doubt we ever will.
2
Leonhardt is pretty confused here.
French law doesn't allow the publication of these kinds of releases (rumors, document dumps, etc) for 48 hours before the election. There's no US equivalent law. And Hillary Clinton running the State Department from a private email server came out 18 months before the election--which is not the same as the release of DNC and Podesta emails that came out more than a month before the election.
So Leonhardt has conflated the private (against written policy) email server with the release of campaign Hillary emails, and Leonhardt has pretended the circumstances and timing are the same.
Then more importantly, albeit not explicitly, Leonhardt has pretended that Marcon was running his cabinet post (Finance Minister) from a private email server.
Needless to say Leohardt looks pretty foolish to have tried pulling this.
French law doesn't allow the publication of these kinds of releases (rumors, document dumps, etc) for 48 hours before the election. There's no US equivalent law. And Hillary Clinton running the State Department from a private email server came out 18 months before the election--which is not the same as the release of DNC and Podesta emails that came out more than a month before the election.
So Leonhardt has conflated the private (against written policy) email server with the release of campaign Hillary emails, and Leonhardt has pretended the circumstances and timing are the same.
Then more importantly, albeit not explicitly, Leonhardt has pretended that Marcon was running his cabinet post (Finance Minister) from a private email server.
Needless to say Leohardt looks pretty foolish to have tried pulling this.
3
The French have one overwhelming advantage over us - they don't have Fox News. We have a major news organization that is effectively the propaganda organ of one of our parties. It would never have offered balanced coverage of any embarrassment suffered by a Democrat.
2
Overhyped is what Trump manipulated the media to do to appeal to segments of the population likely to be enamored of Trump. The arrogance of many media outlets to think that they could bury Trump this way is challenged only by the fact that the effort brought lots of readers/viewers that makes ad sales more expensive. Thus, the media makes out commercially well with "overhype." That's not new. Ethics in the media may in net better than 250 years ago, but the same drive to increase circulation/viewership/readership is the same as always.
Hillary likely was amazingly ignorant on the email front and I think that is an eye opener. It reminded me of how stupid GHWBush looked when he marveled at grocery item scanner. Having her own email server made HRC look pretty ignorant and that concerned me as a voter.
What also amazed me is that HRC didn't bother to follow the rules of communication with restricted materials.
HRC is a remarkable person in a lot of ways, but as "prepared" as she reportedly was to be POTUS, in fact, she has major character flaws that would make her vulnerable. Not that Trump isn't also severely flawed. This most recent election produced two bad options and the Medial should accept some responsibility for that. The best candidate was probably John Kasich but the media had no interest in him. And, now the media complains about Trump and HRC?
Hillary likely was amazingly ignorant on the email front and I think that is an eye opener. It reminded me of how stupid GHWBush looked when he marveled at grocery item scanner. Having her own email server made HRC look pretty ignorant and that concerned me as a voter.
What also amazed me is that HRC didn't bother to follow the rules of communication with restricted materials.
HRC is a remarkable person in a lot of ways, but as "prepared" as she reportedly was to be POTUS, in fact, she has major character flaws that would make her vulnerable. Not that Trump isn't also severely flawed. This most recent election produced two bad options and the Medial should accept some responsibility for that. The best candidate was probably John Kasich but the media had no interest in him. And, now the media complains about Trump and HRC?
2
Perhaps a smaller proportion of the French media, especially the broadcast media, is controlled by right-wing sociopaths?
7
The ugly truth behind America's sensational approach to this story, and to many other stories, is the profit motive, especially in the bizarre universe of cable tv news. The near-constant application of "Breaking News" in the cable world is motivated by connecting eyeballs to advertisers. France, more suspect of this sort of shenianigans, place far greater value on intellectual discourse in their politics.
4
Juxtaposing Macron's and Clinton's e-mail leaks neatly avoids the more deeply troubling reasons why the election results did not go Clinton's way. To be blunt, the Democrats are completely invested in serving the interests of their corporate benefactors, and this is well understood by attentive voters, though it is rarely cited in the mainstream media. Since Bill Clinton's first term, the Democrats have moved the political center rightward, and used the "we're not them" argument to win votes. Another critical reason for Hilary Clinton's defeat resides in a conservative and progressive antipathy for her neoconservative worldview, which again is not typically fleshed out in the mainstream media because it is a perspective that is largely respected and shared among the movers and shakers who own media.
3
It's not "secret emails!" Its the notion someone named Clinton is above the law, a notion perpetuated by the NY Times, NPR, the Obama White House, the DNC, Beltway talking heads, a slew of Super Delegates, etc. THAT is what infuriated voters of all colors and genders and drove enough voters to vote for Donald Trump if for no other reason than the fact that he was/is NOT someone named Clinton.
3
This article would have more credibility if Leonhardt had acknowledged the Times' role and its heavy coverage, along with the rest of the MSM, of the but-her-emails topic.
6
The politicization of major cable news networks, competition for advertising dollars, over focusing on ratings and a 24-hour news cycle all supported the hype which followed the Wikileaks dump of the 'Clinton' emails. This was of course supported byTrump's strategy of keeping the email and email in the public domain. Fortunately for the French the revelations of Russian hacking and interference in the US Presidential election, and the timing of the dump placed the press on alert. But is the press not complicit in encouraging hackers by salivating over the release of stolen data, the Panama Papers is a case in point. Some criminal(s) stole a firm's data base, delivered it to a team of journalists who gleefully accepted the stolen data and analyzed it for publication. The fact that it was stolen was of no importance the news value was greater, the question will always be asked, how much was paid for the stolen goods, are hackers not emboldened by the acceptance of their lucre and the likelihood of finacial rewards.
1
Finally ---an honest evaluation of role of what the news hungry media did to skewer Hilary's campaign and serve the burnt pieces on a plate up the American public as proof that she was up to no good.
Bad judgment by editors, ratings obsessed tv execs were all focusing on the wrong issue ( as the author of this article makes clear). Together they torpedoed a candidate by providing a simplistic and very negative image of her that was easy to latch on to and remember. It stuck -- and it stank because it was a lie. Now we are living with the awful consequences.
Bad judgment by editors, ratings obsessed tv execs were all focusing on the wrong issue ( as the author of this article makes clear). Together they torpedoed a candidate by providing a simplistic and very negative image of her that was easy to latch on to and remember. It stuck -- and it stank because it was a lie. Now we are living with the awful consequences.
8
Thank you, Renee.
2
It wasn't Hillary Clinton's private email server for official business that made news here. It was her defense of it, as arrogant and dismissive as though none dare question her use. Macron, in contrast, didn't delete 30, 000 emails from his personal private server when his opponent asked him to make them public. So as a supporter of Hillary Clinton, you are less than honest here.
Did you not read that the FBI found several hundred emails on her personal server that she tried to delete, all related to her official duties as Secretary of State? Did you not read her email to her daughter describing the Benghazi Embassy attack as the work of terrorists, which her White House flack Susan Rice denied to the media? Nothing of the scale of Clinton's use of her private emails for official government work, or for her foundation's donor interests, appears in Macron's emails. But if he had deleted 30,000 emails after France's national equivalent of our FBI requested them, dismissing their significance as only personal "stuff," "yoga classes," etc., French journalists might not be so "blasé" about his hacked emails.
Did you not read that the FBI found several hundred emails on her personal server that she tried to delete, all related to her official duties as Secretary of State? Did you not read her email to her daughter describing the Benghazi Embassy attack as the work of terrorists, which her White House flack Susan Rice denied to the media? Nothing of the scale of Clinton's use of her private emails for official government work, or for her foundation's donor interests, appears in Macron's emails. But if he had deleted 30,000 emails after France's national equivalent of our FBI requested them, dismissing their significance as only personal "stuff," "yoga classes," etc., French journalists might not be so "blasé" about his hacked emails.
5
In this country, journalism is suffering from the same low-quality education as in other fields. The questions they ask, the reporting they do, the way they behave in public settings, all of it has made journalists a despised professional class. Basic good manners were long gone, but when they ask questions one can see they haven't bothered to study the subject, and are just trying to score points to get some sensationalistic value. The "American" way of education needs to be examined and overhauled, we need less exceptionalism and more basic decency.
5
All the good journalists are soon going to be those sons and daughters of immigrants who went to the best schools and grad schools of journalism. Yes, immigrants.
2
Every outlet from Breitbart to The New York Times is culpable: jockeying for readers with a perverse combination of titillation and false equivalency to grab eyeballs to support an ever-dwindling revenue model.
Figure out the right business model to support all the news that's fit to print - one that values reader privacy to boot - and quality journalism has a chance for revival, and survival.
Figure out the right business model to support all the news that's fit to print - one that values reader privacy to boot - and quality journalism has a chance for revival, and survival.
3
I think the biggest media misstep was treating Donald Trump like a new, shiny toy and not taking him seriously. When Hilary Clinton's name was mentioned, some version of the tag "who nobody likes" was often appended. I never saw a serious examination of why the "no one liked her" phrase was false and misleading. Instead, it was all Trump, all the time, treating him like entertainment.
9
The American media should get an F grade for the way it covered Clinton (and Trump). All screaming and shouting. Then---more screaming and shouting without any grownups anywhere in sight to give some adult perspective. Shame on ALL the media.
8
"Sober" and "serieux" are words of praise in French. No wonder the French press didn't bite the email bait.
3
I have been thinking lately that the media put the crown on Don's cotton candy head for ratings, units and hits. I don't mean that it was a conspiracy to put the man in power, only that it was good for business...a thousand daily decisions of false equivalencies, amazement and anticipation. So now, we wake up everyday to crazy town tweets and headlines, material that keeps millions of eyes gazing on the screens. I think it's obvious that we have reached the point in this American capitalistic society where capitalism ate the America part. Most of the powerful in government, media, business now act in their own best interests, période.
7
I agree 110% that the biggest mistake the U.S. news media made in 2016 was how it covered the Clinton e-mail/server "scandal," as I wrote here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clinton-e-mailserver-what-you-need-know-c... This was a big part of why Russia was able to win its Russo-American Cyberwar against Clinton, as I discuss here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-russo-american-cyberwar-how-obama-l...
Yes, the American media has blood on their hands. They can no longer plead innocence. They helped to define the election and constantly sought to promote equivalency when there clearly was none. How many times would Trump outright lie and the media simple "reported" it. Outrageous. And now look where we are?
6
Not only should the way how the French media and the public handled Macron's leaked emails become a role model for the American media and public for future election races.
But talking of role models, take a good look at the immediacy of Macron suing Le Pen following the last debate in which she accused him of having illegal off-shore accounts.
Why hasn't Obama sued for libel when Trump accused him of wire-tapping him? A serious accusation made without a trace of evidence! Why doesn't the New York Times sue Trump when he labels this newspaper “fake media”? Again, a serious accusation and without any evidence, eroding our democracy? I could add to this list at will...
Making public statements should get all the attention and consequences they deserve. We should not let any populist, habitually lying draft dodger blare out absurd statements left and right. If he does he should face an avalanche of law suits.
But talking of role models, take a good look at the immediacy of Macron suing Le Pen following the last debate in which she accused him of having illegal off-shore accounts.
Why hasn't Obama sued for libel when Trump accused him of wire-tapping him? A serious accusation made without a trace of evidence! Why doesn't the New York Times sue Trump when he labels this newspaper “fake media”? Again, a serious accusation and without any evidence, eroding our democracy? I could add to this list at will...
Making public statements should get all the attention and consequences they deserve. We should not let any populist, habitually lying draft dodger blare out absurd statements left and right. If he does he should face an avalanche of law suits.
2
Yep, no big deal on the Clinton e-mails. Only the usual corruption and media chicanery. Nothing to see here: Just the Democrats and the media doing their usual thing. Move along.
2
You have conflated several issues here. Clinton's private email server was a big story and it was never directly or fully explained by Clinton. She blamed others, most notably Colin Powell. She said earlier Secretaries of State used private email, but never admitted they did not use private email servers which put her in her complete control of her mails. 30,000 emails were never turned over in the FBI investigation. When the Russian emails came out, the story nicely dovetailed with her earlier evasions.
In France, there was no private email server and the hacked emails were released only within 2-3 days of the election. It was not the French press who taught the US press a lesson. It was Clinton caught in another of her less than truthful explanations about an embarrassing situation. She has been there many times over the last 30 years. Remember Monica and the right wing conspiracy. "No truth to the Monica allegations whatsoever. All a right wing conspiracy."
I voted for Clinton and believe Trump is already the worst president the US has ever had. But don't blame the US press.
In France, there was no private email server and the hacked emails were released only within 2-3 days of the election. It was not the French press who taught the US press a lesson. It was Clinton caught in another of her less than truthful explanations about an embarrassing situation. She has been there many times over the last 30 years. Remember Monica and the right wing conspiracy. "No truth to the Monica allegations whatsoever. All a right wing conspiracy."
I voted for Clinton and believe Trump is already the worst president the US has ever had. But don't blame the US press.
4
It's so tragic that the NYT frontpage was by far the worst offender. Sent way more to vote Trump than Russia ever could. Hope the pageviews were worth it. Meanwhile the NYT Opinion pages have been and continue to be dead on, too bad there's such a disconnect
4
America has much stronger protections for both the press and free speech in general through the First Amendment than France. They jail Holocaust deniers and recently found a right to be forgotten, which basically says that people can get truthful data about themselves removed for the web. We take a much more absolutest view of free speech. While I'm fine arguing for the press to use good judgement views on what that means will vary. And I for one will always support more freedom of the press, the alternatives are far worse.
It is irresponsible of you to say Russian "agents" stole Mrs. Clinton's e-mails and published them through Wikileaks. This has not been proven, and the circumstantial evidence to date proves nothing, not to mention that Julian Assange himself is a master hacker along with scads of teenagers messing around on their mom's laptops. For all you know, some 14 year old sitting in his pajamas in Buffalo did it.
The point is, you can "suspect" Russians did it, or somebody in the Middle East, China, or Nigeria did it. Fine, suspect all you want. But you don't "know" who did it, and you certainly don't know Russians agents did it.
So, it looks to me that the American media, if you are any example, has more to learn than just how to handle hacked e-mails - like turning suspicions into facts?
The point is, you can "suspect" Russians did it, or somebody in the Middle East, China, or Nigeria did it. Fine, suspect all you want. But you don't "know" who did it, and you certainly don't know Russians agents did it.
So, it looks to me that the American media, if you are any example, has more to learn than just how to handle hacked e-mails - like turning suspicions into facts?
3
Adam Schiff's statement at the commencement of hearings about Russia's interference in our election process is that their interference is a fact. Read the transcript for yourself. The specifics? Details are known by our intelligence community. Perhaps they will be made public when the investigation is over. But there is little question that the Russians interfered.
http://time.com/4706721/comey-hearing-adam-schiff-transcript/
What is left to figure out now is what involvement any Americans may have had.
Perhaps you simply don't want to believe Representative Schiff. Maybe you just prefer to believe Facebook posts.
http://time.com/4706721/comey-hearing-adam-schiff-transcript/
What is left to figure out now is what involvement any Americans may have had.
Perhaps you simply don't want to believe Representative Schiff. Maybe you just prefer to believe Facebook posts.
15
@CF: It's a piece of the puzzle. But Schiff is not exactly an objective voice, and he has reasons to want to undermine the president's legitimacy. Politics? Probably has a lot to do with it? The "details" may confirm what Schiff says, but as long as the rest of us remain in the dark about the "details" his testimony is simply his testimony, and politics almost certainly plays into it. And even when the details are known to all, do you seriously believe they will be interpreted by everyone the same way? Besides, and while many regard him as not the best of characters, Assagne still says the Russians were not his source. Even theives and criminals tell the truth sometimes!
Americans can be so falsely outraged. The French have a lot more sangfroid.
The comments both in the media and general public about the emails exhibited the purist nature of the American populace who thought that Podesta's risotto recipe was somehow a sign that the Clinton campaign was light weight and superficial.
The French appreciate a good recipe and want some angst in their leaders. It shows they have emotion and love of good things in life.
Well, now we have our own 'let them eat cake' leader. Perhaps, the US will finally grow into its liberal roots as the country faces the takeover of the government by the far right beliefs of Pence, Bannon, Miller, Conway and the mega wealthy maniacs that pull the strings from the shadows. Move over Marie Antoinette.
equalite, fraternite, liberte (sorry about the accents)
The comments both in the media and general public about the emails exhibited the purist nature of the American populace who thought that Podesta's risotto recipe was somehow a sign that the Clinton campaign was light weight and superficial.
The French appreciate a good recipe and want some angst in their leaders. It shows they have emotion and love of good things in life.
Well, now we have our own 'let them eat cake' leader. Perhaps, the US will finally grow into its liberal roots as the country faces the takeover of the government by the far right beliefs of Pence, Bannon, Miller, Conway and the mega wealthy maniacs that pull the strings from the shadows. Move over Marie Antoinette.
equalite, fraternite, liberte (sorry about the accents)
4
Besides the "unauthorized use of a private server" and "forwarding of supposedly classified info to staff" issues within the Clinton campaign, a major difference btw the Clinton and Macron stories is that we now have a much better understanding of the hacking source and motivation. It is the clearest and most compelling reason for a vigorous and complete investigation into exactly who and how this attack on the American electoral system was perpetrated. When the trick behind the illusion is known magic dissolves into reality and loses its alluring charm.
"It’s a sign that the media failed to distinguish a subject that sounded important — secret emails! — from subjects that were in reality more important."
Mr. Leonhardt omits the option that best explains why Mrs. Clinton's emails and private server dominated her coverage and why Trump got constant coverage. Money. CNN president Jeff Zucker said as much during the campaign. The he-said-she-said and false equivalence (something the Times Public Editor continues to deny) generates more clicks than discussions of policy and substance. I also think the media was complacent about Mr. Trump's chances and failed to play their proper role of providing context to their audience.
Mr. Leonhardt omits the option that best explains why Mrs. Clinton's emails and private server dominated her coverage and why Trump got constant coverage. Money. CNN president Jeff Zucker said as much during the campaign. The he-said-she-said and false equivalence (something the Times Public Editor continues to deny) generates more clicks than discussions of policy and substance. I also think the media was complacent about Mr. Trump's chances and failed to play their proper role of providing context to their audience.
3
The difference between America and France is that 1) France got to watch what was happening in America in 2016 and make a choice to do the opposite and 2) In 2016 American media chose Money, Money, Money above all else. How many billions did Trump get in free press in exchange of advertising dollars earned via sensationalism. All media in America piled onto the Trump train and you guys loved every minute. Trump 24/7.
And look how long (after much hand wringing) it took the media to call a lie a lie.
It would hurt your profit margin! to say something bad about Trump.
Apparently the French are able to learn from America's experience but I really doubt America will learn from the French. We are too invested in profit at all costs and are just plain dumber.
And look how long (after much hand wringing) it took the media to call a lie a lie.
It would hurt your profit margin! to say something bad about Trump.
Apparently the French are able to learn from America's experience but I really doubt America will learn from the French. We are too invested in profit at all costs and are just plain dumber.
As long as media competes solely for audience share, we will continue to be in competition for the sensational, even turning the mundane into the sensational. The rest of the media is so intent on competing with FOX News for share, they felt they had give the Clinton emails headline news. And then they give the radical right equal time on the issue to show they are "balanced." We still see that today: the AHCA is an awful bill, but all of the moderate networks give Paul Ryan equal time to spin his disaster as something wonderful despite the fact that most independent organizations have correctly interpreted what this law will mean for so many Americans. They do the same with climate change by making a 1 per cent minority look like evenly split research. The media needs to show balance, but make sure that real proportional balance is portrayed.
2
The witch hunt against Hillary Clinton was abominable. Motormouth Trump never stopped with his voice polution, and many in the media was compliant in spreading the wildfire about the emails. (A special Thanks 'Shout Out' to Matt Lauer). Whatever baggage Mrs. Clinton carried over the years in her political career, she would be hard pressed to compare to the blatant notoriety of 'President' Trump. Plus the obvious comparison to who was the more reliable candidate ; what a joke! What this country needs is an educational system that promotes a fair, objective and balanced view of American Civics and History. A good portion of the conservative agenda in this country is destroying our democracy.
3
No doubt that Hillary Clinton was making a better campaign than Trump. Well, everything could be better than a package of lies we can say. But the problem was not Clinton. The real problem is the American public who some will qualify as moronic. It's this lowly educated public who allows for the slippery on the media. In France it's the public who won't tolerate le dérapage (slippery) of their news sources.
While the self scrutiny of NYT is welcome it is far too late. Immense damage has already been done to our nation and, as we all know, continues to be done daily.
In fairness to your paper, in my perception you were the least of offenders and now the leader of recriminations and an effort to repent in national media. Our highways are now filled with "Lock her up" bumper stickers and white, barely shaving state troopers stopping black drivers for no apparent reason.
The first amendment gives us all an obligation to truth. On that basis alone, national cancers such as Fox (fake) News and Rush Limbaugh should never even have seen the light of day. We have our work cut out for us.
In fairness to your paper, in my perception you were the least of offenders and now the leader of recriminations and an effort to repent in national media. Our highways are now filled with "Lock her up" bumper stickers and white, barely shaving state troopers stopping black drivers for no apparent reason.
The first amendment gives us all an obligation to truth. On that basis alone, national cancers such as Fox (fake) News and Rush Limbaugh should never even have seen the light of day. We have our work cut out for us.
3
I disagree. There is no expiration date to self scrutiny. NYT ought to do it. They have to face reality and realize how and what they did, throughout the campaign season. They have to take a step back and look at themselves. Its pretty ugly and goes against journalistic ethos.
2
How Ms. Clinton was bragging about a 85/15% win over Trump, in fact was celebrating her win the night of the elections and has shown us a woman 100% incompetent. She gave us Trump.
4
Try this again. To Paul Leighty. Do you think blackout laws would have stopped Trump from screaming about emails at every place his plane landed? He doesn't seem to worry about laws or practices when it comes to ethics or tax returns. What would have been done to him? Disqualify him as candidate? That wouldn't happen. Fine him? He wrote a check for 25 million to settle his fake university and didn't blink an eye.
Sigh. Media sources and publishers, some more than others, always have been and always will be colored by bias and sensationalism. And of course, the content and style of news will always be influenced by the desires of the readers/viewers, so blaming it all on "them", and painting "us" as victims is a bit misleading.
As for the NY Times, I do not often agree with its editorial positions, but I have always looked to the Times for substantial quality news and reasoned opinion. Lately, I have been disappointed, and ponder why.
Is it a sign of current trends, with traditional media dumbing down to challenge social media at the same game? More clicks!
Is it editorial frustration at recent events? Villify Trump! (and get more clicks from a frantic partisan readership)
Is it a deliberate decision to embrace bias and challenge equally biased sources from the right? Damn Murdoch and Fox!
Is it a generational turn over, with different perceptions of what reporting is all about? What's a newspaper--where's my iPhone? Look--puppies!
Or is it a reflection of how much of the world has changed?
As for the NY Times, I do not often agree with its editorial positions, but I have always looked to the Times for substantial quality news and reasoned opinion. Lately, I have been disappointed, and ponder why.
Is it a sign of current trends, with traditional media dumbing down to challenge social media at the same game? More clicks!
Is it editorial frustration at recent events? Villify Trump! (and get more clicks from a frantic partisan readership)
Is it a deliberate decision to embrace bias and challenge equally biased sources from the right? Damn Murdoch and Fox!
Is it a generational turn over, with different perceptions of what reporting is all about? What's a newspaper--where's my iPhone? Look--puppies!
Or is it a reflection of how much of the world has changed?
2
Given the advantage of hindsight, this column makes an obvious point. But if these email events had occurred in reverse order, it would have been the French news media who would have made the error in discretion. The GOP had the advantage of a surprise hacking in he U.S. and could make hay with whatever content there was. If the French had been hacked first, U.S. news media might not have over-reacted and made such a big deal out of so little because it would have been obvious who was doing the hacking and why. I think this article is off base for that reason.
1
Check out the kind of firm questions Ivanka Trump was asked at the women's business leaders conference on stage in Germany and you saw a moderator who knew how to get at the truth. No follow up is the usual in the US.
4
In America, the media's race to be first ends up the race to the bottom.
2
Thank you for expressing these issues so well. How ironic for America to be offered some lessons from the French about how to run a democracy. Perhaps we'll be able to benefit from the seeds we sowed in the 1770's. As for Clinton's emails, yes, we should have been concerned, but media coverage of that issue pre-empted everything else. The media showed a stubborn tunnel vision during the campaign that extended beyond Clinton. There was a blindness, a skeptical refusal to even cover the Sanders' campaign. I see the resulting debacle as a cultural problem in which we've all crawled into our small caves of belief and see only what is directly in front of us. Instead of challenging us, the media has largely been reinforcing this. I see some glimmers of hope at the Times -- some days. But confoundingly mainstream journalists appear to have completely forgotten the existence of the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. Some old guy.
1
Yes. 100%, yes.
There are several reasons why we're in our current predicament and it seems none are the primary one. However, as I watched the daily news with baited breath, every morning for the past several years, I saw Trump jump from one scandal to the next, while Clinton received equal coverage of her emails. When the news anchors asked questions that seemed negative about Trump, they almost always followed up with a comparison to Clinton and her emails or untrustworthiness. I realize they were aiming to appear unbiased, but I think it resulted in the feeling that both candidates were equally slimy.
I read and watch enough news and felt like I had a grasp of Hillary's situation, but this amplification of her email scandal actually confused me several times throughout the year. Maybe I'd missed some recent bombshell? Maybe I misunderstood the weight of this particular issue? I searched for additional facts and explanations for the ongoing drip, but nothing gave an adequate answer.
In the rush to be first, to collect clicks, and to go viral, news in its purest form doesn't stand a chance. It has to be fluffed up, photo-shopped, and sensationalized to make the cut in this digital age, truth and facts be damned.
There are several reasons why we're in our current predicament and it seems none are the primary one. However, as I watched the daily news with baited breath, every morning for the past several years, I saw Trump jump from one scandal to the next, while Clinton received equal coverage of her emails. When the news anchors asked questions that seemed negative about Trump, they almost always followed up with a comparison to Clinton and her emails or untrustworthiness. I realize they were aiming to appear unbiased, but I think it resulted in the feeling that both candidates were equally slimy.
I read and watch enough news and felt like I had a grasp of Hillary's situation, but this amplification of her email scandal actually confused me several times throughout the year. Maybe I'd missed some recent bombshell? Maybe I misunderstood the weight of this particular issue? I searched for additional facts and explanations for the ongoing drip, but nothing gave an adequate answer.
In the rush to be first, to collect clicks, and to go viral, news in its purest form doesn't stand a chance. It has to be fluffed up, photo-shopped, and sensationalized to make the cut in this digital age, truth and facts be damned.
68
It isn't just the press who needs to take a lesson from Macron's election and how it was covered. It is also the voters. French voters revealed that they are more sophisticated and intelligent about what the media puts out and have far more perceptive qualities to discern the difference between real and fake news. American voters have a limited attention span and tend to believe just about everything they see and read.Under such conditions, an inbecile like Trump was bound to rise.
5
David,
It's called "judgement". The ability to separate wheat from chaff. American journalists chose "chaff" almost as if they didn't know what "wheat" looked like.
It is a matter of education. They need to go back to school.
It's called "judgement". The ability to separate wheat from chaff. American journalists chose "chaff" almost as if they didn't know what "wheat" looked like.
It is a matter of education. They need to go back to school.
2
We have to know who is writing the story- Fox is the propaganda arm of the GOP with no consequences for distorting facts to fit a political narrative.
That a couple of sexual predators ran the place should be front and center.
That a couple of sexual predators ran the place should be front and center.
2
How about all the media stick to the traditional 5Ws and how then we citizens can decide. That would mean no headlines that don't match the real story and many other things including elimination of emotional words from reporting.
5
Two excellent points vulcanalex! So often I have been "baited and switched" by a headline. And eliminating emotional words from reporting should be journalism 101. I miss the days of reports starting with WHO, WHAT, WHERE and WHEN not some hazy literary description to "set a mood."
2
Where were you and the times' editors last year? A little late to the party.
7
David- Thank you for this piece. It is important to determine what went wrong with the 2016 coverage so as not to repeat it- ever again.
While it is true the french media had an opportunity to learn from the terrible and consequential mistakes made by the U.S. media, it is also true that the french tend to be much wiser than we are.
The french media saw the hack for what it was- Russia's attempt to change the outcome of their presidential election. So, they focused on the importance and the meaning of the hack instead of the content of the emails. They looked at the big picture while U.S. media chose to dive into the weeds and dissect individual emails.
The U.S. media failed us miserably. Day after day the headlines were about Clinton's server and emails which played right into Russia's hand. The media helped sew the seeds of doubt and discontent that the Russian's knew could change the outcome of our election.
All the horrible pieces fell into place...and here we are with trump at the helm and he continues to deny that Russia meddled in the election. He's still doing the Russia's bidding. We live in truly frightening times.
While it is true the french media had an opportunity to learn from the terrible and consequential mistakes made by the U.S. media, it is also true that the french tend to be much wiser than we are.
The french media saw the hack for what it was- Russia's attempt to change the outcome of their presidential election. So, they focused on the importance and the meaning of the hack instead of the content of the emails. They looked at the big picture while U.S. media chose to dive into the weeds and dissect individual emails.
The U.S. media failed us miserably. Day after day the headlines were about Clinton's server and emails which played right into Russia's hand. The media helped sew the seeds of doubt and discontent that the Russian's knew could change the outcome of our election.
All the horrible pieces fell into place...and here we are with trump at the helm and he continues to deny that Russia meddled in the election. He's still doing the Russia's bidding. We live in truly frightening times.
4
So what you're saying is, after months of nonstop reporting by U.S. media, investigations by U.S. officials and hearings by U.S. lawmakers resulted in the unmasking and unequivocal identification of the culprit and that culprit's methods - along with highly publicized advance warnings for other European nations facing similar circumstances - the French "saw the hack for what it was"? ok then. wow. That's some....impressive insight, I guess? They clearly have much to teach us.
Seems to me, media is, in part, Clinton's "hacked emails crowded out everything else." As example, I'm reminded of Kelly Ann Conway interview - by national TV network - on day Trump settled charges he "swindled" enrollees at his "University," yet interviewer never inquired about that case/settlement, instead focusing on Hillary's alleged mishandling of emails.
Yet still, to this day, seldom if any, is Trump or his surrogates questioned about NY Atty General charge that he "swindled."
Yet still, to this day, seldom if any, is Trump or his surrogates questioned about NY Atty General charge that he "swindled."
3
From a media aspect, there probably isn't a privately owned station in France as venal as FOX, with its right-wing tabloid agenda.
Given that, and the lesson the French must have learned from looking at our own fiasco of an election, including the ruthless cyber attacks, and the overt limitations of rabid populism, they were in an infinitely better position to walk through the minefield of their own presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, on this side of the ocean, the Clinton witchhunt was at times so depraved that it lost any singular meaning outside of making as much noise as possible.
Justice never had anything to do with it.
And now that we're seeing just how complicit the Russians were (and possibly still are) in Trump's election, and just how greedy and banal his interests really are, those infamous "emails" look like little more than a joke.
The U.S. media also played it's part by covering it all like the horse-race it wasn't, which was only jettisoned by America's fixation with quick entertainment.
This has become a nation where effortless "fake news" is touted as truth, merely for the sake of sensation and ratings.
Not "winning".
Given that, and the lesson the French must have learned from looking at our own fiasco of an election, including the ruthless cyber attacks, and the overt limitations of rabid populism, they were in an infinitely better position to walk through the minefield of their own presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, on this side of the ocean, the Clinton witchhunt was at times so depraved that it lost any singular meaning outside of making as much noise as possible.
Justice never had anything to do with it.
And now that we're seeing just how complicit the Russians were (and possibly still are) in Trump's election, and just how greedy and banal his interests really are, those infamous "emails" look like little more than a joke.
The U.S. media also played it's part by covering it all like the horse-race it wasn't, which was only jettisoned by America's fixation with quick entertainment.
This has become a nation where effortless "fake news" is touted as truth, merely for the sake of sensation and ratings.
Not "winning".
4
The same problems of misplaced focus is occurring still in coverage of this administration. So much is happening under the radar of the legitimate media — judicial appointments, removal of scientists, ICE atrocities, etc. — that will be a lasting legacy of 60 years of progress undone. Granted, I am aware of much of this as a careful reader of reputable sources including The Times, but there needs to be much more and much deeper attention to the cancer that must be caught before it metastasizes..
1
I am not aware that any of the hacked emails from Hillary's campaign came from her server. If anything, her server was better "secured" than the State Department server. You seem to condemn her for something that was, and still is, commonplace.
What about the private server used by Dubya for 8 years? What about the 22 million emails "lost" from the lead up to the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country, the invasion of Iraq? What about the fact that trump's White House is still using a private server?
You are right: the media blew it in the lead up to the election. But what do you expect from a blatantly right-wing dominated media?
What about the private server used by Dubya for 8 years? What about the 22 million emails "lost" from the lead up to the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country, the invasion of Iraq? What about the fact that trump's White House is still using a private server?
You are right: the media blew it in the lead up to the election. But what do you expect from a blatantly right-wing dominated media?
We also have a Republican Legislature that vowed to harm HRC, nothing more, nothing less. They were similar to pit bulls feasting on their spoils. They even vowed if HRC won the Presidency they would impeach her, with or without just cause.
Currently, this very same Legislature are lap dogs for Trump. Their job excludes impeaching one of their own. Despite the fact, that our President ill equipped to Govern or even learn, very dangerous in his current role.
Republicans are giddy in their one an only job, which is to destroy the social security of our Democratic society and to ensure that the 1% and Corporations get richer. This will include the Trump family, who will rape this country for every penny of profit in their pockets.
Currently, this very same Legislature are lap dogs for Trump. Their job excludes impeaching one of their own. Despite the fact, that our President ill equipped to Govern or even learn, very dangerous in his current role.
Republicans are giddy in their one an only job, which is to destroy the social security of our Democratic society and to ensure that the 1% and Corporations get richer. This will include the Trump family, who will rape this country for every penny of profit in their pockets.
She was not "fully" honest? Come on. She was not remotely honest.
2
No one in journalism ever inherited the legacies of people like Cronkite, Rather, Huntley-Brinkley, Sevareid, Reasoner, Murrow or Walters. The vacuum was filled by morons like O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity.
The NYT, Washington Post,sometimes CNN and CBS do their best, but they can't seem to overcome the public's appetite for fake news that disappears in the blink of an eye.
But it's important they keep trying and never give up.
The NYT, Washington Post,sometimes CNN and CBS do their best, but they can't seem to overcome the public's appetite for fake news that disappears in the blink of an eye.
But it's important they keep trying and never give up.
2
Norm Einstein published a word bubble from the NYT after the election - the biggest word?? EMAIL - David Leonhardt - you should have singled out your own!
2
The biggest lesson we can learn from the French election is this: You give the damn election to the person with the most votes.
6
I am inclined to agree. However, it would be wrong to assume that just because Trump lost the popular vote, if we were to do away with the electoral college, some other unqualified fool wouldn't win the popular vote in the future.
1
Mr. Leonhardt, I don't understand your thinking. Hillary did not lose because of hacked Emails. And she did not lose because Abedin sent classified info to her server. She lost because her husband was impeached for using his power to have sex with a naive intern. And then Hillary denounced the girl for seducing her husband. And Hillary, as a lawyer, (before her husband was our president,) defended a rapist by degrading the victim. And then when she ran for the presidency she was beaten by an unknown black man. When Obama did her a favor by making her secretary of State, she blew that too because Americans were murdered in Benghazi and she never owned up to it. She is rotten to the core. And her president said, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."
Hillary promised to continue Obama's pile of lies. And she never admitted to her husband's abuse of power. We saw it the first time. And we never forgot it when she ran a second time. No one trusts her.
That's why Hillary lost.
Hillary promised to continue Obama's pile of lies. And she never admitted to her husband's abuse of power. We saw it the first time. And we never forgot it when she ran a second time. No one trusts her.
That's why Hillary lost.
The entire premise of this article is ridiculous. There is no proof of Russian hacking of the election and unverified claims does not equal proof. Furthermore what was found was revealing, since the DNC basically screwed Sanders out of any possible chance to win the primary.
All this proves about France is that it was in the bag for Macron and Le Pen didn't have a prayer.
All this proves about France is that it was in the bag for Macron and Le Pen didn't have a prayer.
2
Whither Fox News?
Leonhardt rightly criticizes media coverage of Russia's cyberattacks on our election. But he names no names. It wasn't the faceless media that screwed up: it was specific reporters and editors and their bosses, including some at the Times. Call them out, Mr. Leonhardt, and continue to call them out as they continue to screw up coverage of Putin and Trump's cons.
2
To Ambroisine, Le Pen and Clinton lost because they were women...you are pushing the envelope too much...Will you include Palin also. Le Pen lost because she was financed by Russia, against Europe, against the overall interest of France. Clinton lost because of a lousy campaign, too much on herself, no new agenda, and the super-delegates (mostly old fashioned women, including Debbie). Palin,....well, she still looking for some brain....but still attracting morons. Do you ignore Merkel, May, they are women too.
1
Stop blaming journalism and put the blame where it belongs, on that foul sawed off Aussie racist, ruppert murdoch and the intellectually bankrupt losers from the sewer south and worthless Midwest that he preys on.
Frances lack of inbred losers and a Fox News to exploit them is the only reason Le Penn lost.
An educated electorate is the only weapon against scum like murdoch and his brand of fear mongering.
Frances lack of inbred losers and a Fox News to exploit them is the only reason Le Penn lost.
An educated electorate is the only weapon against scum like murdoch and his brand of fear mongering.
6
The media has done a lot of damage to itself. There is a reason most Americans don't trust them, and it's not all due to the "fake news" blather on the right. Some of it is self inflicted wounds like the way they handled the innocuous HRC emails. Now we have a madman who is buried in incompetence and scandal in the white house. The effects to the American public will be long, deep and in some cases, devistating. Journalists should search their souls and look in the mirror. Thank you David for doing this. So many of your colleagues have not.
2
Part of the difference between the reactions of the US and French media was the difference in time involved. The GOP kept the Clinton emails in the news for months as a means to smear Mrs. Clinton. French restraint was aided by the fact the emails were available only two days before the election.
Perhaps most important, hard Right media organizations such as Fox News and Sinclair, made hundreds of millions of dollars of profits hyping the Clinton emails as a national security scandal, despite the FBI investigation none existed.
Perhaps most important, hard Right media organizations such as Fox News and Sinclair, made hundreds of millions of dollars of profits hyping the Clinton emails as a national security scandal, despite the FBI investigation none existed.
1
As far as I can tell the media breathlessly covered every tidbit related to HRC and Trump during the campaign more or less equally. To go back now and say maybe you shouldn't have covered Clinton quite so well is erroneous - your job is to cover the news.
As others have pointed out, the DNC's favoritism towards Clinton and comments about Sanders's religion were legitimate stories. These spread past Clinton herself and showed a degree of dishonesty within the DNC most did not suspect. This deserved wide coverage.
With respect to Hillary's home server, she invited scrutiny by consistently acting like she had something to hide. As the server story same out she changed her story little by little, at one point obviously feigning ignorance with her "you mean wipe it with a cloth?' comment. It's easy to look back with the advantage of hindsight, but Clinton's behavior demanded a close look at the time.
As others have pointed out, the DNC's favoritism towards Clinton and comments about Sanders's religion were legitimate stories. These spread past Clinton herself and showed a degree of dishonesty within the DNC most did not suspect. This deserved wide coverage.
With respect to Hillary's home server, she invited scrutiny by consistently acting like she had something to hide. As the server story same out she changed her story little by little, at one point obviously feigning ignorance with her "you mean wipe it with a cloth?' comment. It's easy to look back with the advantage of hindsight, but Clinton's behavior demanded a close look at the time.
4
Cable "News" did not "cover" the Clinton emails in any journalistic sense. There was very little recitation of facts or sober analysis.
Election coverage was dominated by representatives of the campaigns who were paid to lie in support of their candidate. If the network needed someone to lie to "balance" the coverage or make "good TV", they went out and booked someone to do it. The best, most outrageous liers were booked the most often not in spite of their predilection to misinform but because of it.
Since cable news has a lot of hours to fill, they also made sure to have full time panels of commentators on the payroll who could also lie on cue. The more outrageous the lie the better.
No lessons learned. No desire to change. Money is being made, ratings are up, and Jeffrey Lord and his ilk are still employed by "news" organizations.
Election coverage was dominated by representatives of the campaigns who were paid to lie in support of their candidate. If the network needed someone to lie to "balance" the coverage or make "good TV", they went out and booked someone to do it. The best, most outrageous liers were booked the most often not in spite of their predilection to misinform but because of it.
Since cable news has a lot of hours to fill, they also made sure to have full time panels of commentators on the payroll who could also lie on cue. The more outrageous the lie the better.
No lessons learned. No desire to change. Money is being made, ratings are up, and Jeffrey Lord and his ilk are still employed by "news" organizations.
3
It's actually the same: the emails didn't decide either election, much as establishment Democrats want to believe otherwise. And we don't know how the French would have dealt with revealing and embarrassing material, given the leisure to report on it.
We could talk a lot, and uselessly, about "the media's worst mistake in 2016". It's much easier to talk about NYT mistakes. This would begin with the shockingly unfair, anti-Sanders coverage of the Democratic primary, but of course David Leonhardt doesn't want to hear that.
We could talk a lot, and uselessly, about "the media's worst mistake in 2016". It's much easier to talk about NYT mistakes. This would begin with the shockingly unfair, anti-Sanders coverage of the Democratic primary, but of course David Leonhardt doesn't want to hear that.
3
Go to the comments section of way too many "news" sites and you are treated to grotesque scrawls, ALL CAPS, denigration of every stripe...
Go to the comments of any French site and you will largely find polite discourse. No ALL CAPS. Wit in place of denigration. Bannon/Breitbart culture didn't take there. Neither will troll factories or hacking.
Go to the comments of any French site and you will largely find polite discourse. No ALL CAPS. Wit in place of denigration. Bannon/Breitbart culture didn't take there. Neither will troll factories or hacking.
3
Television coverage of news is slanted almost totally by viewer numbers, because more viewers means higher prices charged to advertisers; in a word, money. Look at Fox (don't), which everyone sane knows is totally biased and essentially right wing propaganda...but it draws viewers with sensationalism, it's current policies reap profits, so nothing will change. Print media are much more reliable because of the ability to actually investigate before publishing; not that they always do, but the ability is there. Moreover, people who read are generally better educated and willing to take the time to get the news in greater depth. TV coverage, delivered in 2-minute bites, can never be the only news source we get.
1
It is deeply disappointing to see a columnist of your quality accepting as fact that the Russians were behind the Podesta/WikiLeaks disclosures when that never, ever has been established. (As distinguished from serious allegations being investigated about contacts between Russian agents and Trump-affiliated individuals over the course of the campaign.)
So it is equally disappointing to see you adopting lock, stock and barrel a failed campaign's attempts at absolution by repeating over and over "It was the Roosians!" and/or "It was Comey!" when the reasons for the Democratic Party's failure were far more complex and long-standing. I was a Clinton supporter in '08 and in '16 and view her loss last year as a tragedy.
But it is a tragedy that requires self-examination and hard questions about exactly who and what the Democratic Party stands for and will fight for, not glib and exonerating variations on the childhood excuse of "I didn't do it! The other kid did it!"
So it is equally disappointing to see you adopting lock, stock and barrel a failed campaign's attempts at absolution by repeating over and over "It was the Roosians!" and/or "It was Comey!" when the reasons for the Democratic Party's failure were far more complex and long-standing. I was a Clinton supporter in '08 and in '16 and view her loss last year as a tragedy.
But it is a tragedy that requires self-examination and hard questions about exactly who and what the Democratic Party stands for and will fight for, not glib and exonerating variations on the childhood excuse of "I didn't do it! The other kid did it!"
2
If there was dirt on Le Pen or Trump the media would have been all over it. What you're saying is only report on things that suit your ideology.
No french Murdoch.
1
At last, some modicum of reflection on the out-sized role the media played hyping e-mails to the exclusion of nearly everything else. The real poison pill for the media was the hacked wikileaks e-mails. Even as a private citizen I knew the flogging of stolen e-mails with Russian fingerprints was a repulsive low for journalism. I sat dumbfounded as nearly every night on NBC Andrea Mitchell featured a sensationalized report on those stolen e-mails. She was hardly the only one. It was a feeding frenzy of epic proportions.
As I sat and watched the reports I literally felt sick for my country. After the wreckage of the 2016 election I can no longer watch NBC news. I'm sure if I had watched elsewhere I'd feel the same about them. I know the NYT flogged them relentlessly as well.
Going forward there needs to be much stricter guidelines as to what is appropriate, but one thing is iron clad. If the Russians are involved, don't play their game. They are very skilled at manipulation and sizing up an opponents weaknesses. For the press, it's scandal, ratings and sensationalism.
As I sat and watched the reports I literally felt sick for my country. After the wreckage of the 2016 election I can no longer watch NBC news. I'm sure if I had watched elsewhere I'd feel the same about them. I know the NYT flogged them relentlessly as well.
Going forward there needs to be much stricter guidelines as to what is appropriate, but one thing is iron clad. If the Russians are involved, don't play their game. They are very skilled at manipulation and sizing up an opponents weaknesses. For the press, it's scandal, ratings and sensationalism.
2
Throughout the campaign the media treated it like a horse race. Now I like horse races, but that's not the way to select a government leader; of course it did get us what we've got,a [*'s a*] and the media is responsible.
Who owns the media? We'll never know.
1
Here's here's the problem. You've got CNN that MUST fill 24 hours every day with something that compels viewers to stay glued to their screens. Else, they are like an airline dispatching flights full of empty seats. Insolvent. What do you get? 24 hours of mostly drivel and rehash, led by lightweight, ersatz "journalists" bolstered by panels of mostly nobodies living off the wattage of stage lights. The result, a media soup that is watered down to nothingness prepared by short order cooks - that is continually being critiqued by waiters who have no taste buds. Of course, the American public is hooked on this diet of sugar, fat and air - as it is irresistible to our primal taste buds, but is nutritionally bankrupt. Such is the power of "Breaking News," that should rightly be called "Broken News."
40% of America is clinically obese. Likely, that's the same 40% that still approves of Trump. We've become a nation of fatheads and fat bodies.
Why? You can't blame lab rats when they're given the choice of all the junk food they can eat or starvation. You can blame the Americans people when given the choice between a salad or a BigMac, they choose the latter overwhelmingly. Junk food like CNN and its ilk, should, at most, be an occasional guilty pleasure, not the centerpiece of our information diet. Fortunately, for the French, they know the difference between a Twinkie and a soufflé - and are willing to wait for the latter.
40% of America is clinically obese. Likely, that's the same 40% that still approves of Trump. We've become a nation of fatheads and fat bodies.
Why? You can't blame lab rats when they're given the choice of all the junk food they can eat or starvation. You can blame the Americans people when given the choice between a salad or a BigMac, they choose the latter overwhelmingly. Junk food like CNN and its ilk, should, at most, be an occasional guilty pleasure, not the centerpiece of our information diet. Fortunately, for the French, they know the difference between a Twinkie and a soufflé - and are willing to wait for the latter.
3
Way too little, WAY too late.....
Does this mean that the political leanings of the NYT will determine "All the news that's fit to print"? I think the biggest problem with the media today is that besides often being lazy and publishing government releases as factual, they greatly overestimate their own self importance. Exposing the internal biases of a major political party is newsworthy and how this was discovered is secondary although I'd rather see it discovered by an investigative reporter than wikileaks. "Shoot the Messenger" Without a private server for government business there would be no email story.
In the most simple of terms, our election was about the uncouth versus the untruth which is fitting for personal attacks and political gotcha. From lock her up to Miss Piggy, I don't give a whit.
In the most simple of terms, our election was about the uncouth versus the untruth which is fitting for personal attacks and political gotcha. From lock her up to Miss Piggy, I don't give a whit.
2
Beginning with the election of the twice married Hollywood heathen actor Ronald Wilson Reagan the path was paved for the thrice married heathen hedonist pagan inherited real estate baron media maven serial adulterer sexual assaulter Donald John Trump.
America has adopted French moral family values at the highest public executive government level. France's current President is a serial adulterer. The future French President is married to his two decades older plus former high school teacher.
The problem with Hillary Clinton was born of her own arrogance, incompetence and greed. And the leaked e-mails merely confirmed the negative opinions that many Americans already had of her in a change election year.
The e-mail leak in France occurred on the eve of the election. There was no French James Comey nor was there any evidence of interference by Benjamin Netanyahu in the French election. Nor has Julian Assange claimed a role. Both Le Pen and Macron had political and government experience. The American lesson for the French media was exposing the vastly different historical ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational natures of the two nations.
America has adopted French moral family values at the highest public executive government level. France's current President is a serial adulterer. The future French President is married to his two decades older plus former high school teacher.
The problem with Hillary Clinton was born of her own arrogance, incompetence and greed. And the leaked e-mails merely confirmed the negative opinions that many Americans already had of her in a change election year.
The e-mail leak in France occurred on the eve of the election. There was no French James Comey nor was there any evidence of interference by Benjamin Netanyahu in the French election. Nor has Julian Assange claimed a role. Both Le Pen and Macron had political and government experience. The American lesson for the French media was exposing the vastly different historical ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational natures of the two nations.
1
The French are at an advantage. They don't have a Rupert Murdoch.
Ashis
Canada
Ashis
Canada
3
Could it be possible that the French people have the ability to think whereas the average US citizen seems happy to be a mere mouth piece for any old lie coming out of Fox News?
3
Fewer Anglo Saxons?
Much deeper examination of the NY Times role in defeating Bernie is needed.
2
You "pundits" are actually funny! Clinton's out-of-system email server was NOT a non-story. REALLY? But the identical by Colin Powell was?
Well said.
A reversed lesson.
1
Save me the histrionics, Mr. Leonhardt. HRC was your newspaper's golden girl. Between you and Krugman one might not have known that Sanders was even running. You guys oversold your product and you did some real damage to journalistic truth in the process.
You asked for it, "those of us practicing it need to be open to reflection and criticism."
Personally I don't trust people who monomaniacally pursue only one profession. If you had had another full-time job in your life, maybe you would have understood that HRC was tragically flawed. Maybe you would have seen that the obvious choice for you was not the obvious choice for many people who felt abandoned by the Democrats. I tend to avoid reading your pieces on principle. They usually make me mad, ... the self-righteousness and all. But you asked for it.
And dropping Jefferson into your little personal ego trip was just more evidence that you need to get out there and be a journalist, not a hack-pundit. There is a difference.
You asked for it, "those of us practicing it need to be open to reflection and criticism."
Personally I don't trust people who monomaniacally pursue only one profession. If you had had another full-time job in your life, maybe you would have understood that HRC was tragically flawed. Maybe you would have seen that the obvious choice for you was not the obvious choice for many people who felt abandoned by the Democrats. I tend to avoid reading your pieces on principle. They usually make me mad, ... the self-righteousness and all. But you asked for it.
And dropping Jefferson into your little personal ego trip was just more evidence that you need to get out there and be a journalist, not a hack-pundit. There is a difference.
4
I suggest you send this to your employers. The New York Times was among the worst offenders. Daily wall to wall coverage of Trump and hundreds of (often greatly exagerated) negative articles about Clinton. No discernment in posting Wikileaks data. No discernment in posting Comey letter.
3
Maybe the French don't have the equivalent of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh?
1
The U.S. press, and in particular, the NYTimes should repeat to itself every day: "Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa". Perhaps it should be on the masthead until this administration is gone.
1
You forgot to mention the NYT's long-time Clinton Derangement Syndrome (Whitewater, etc.) which made it all the easier to blow up a non-issue (sorry, Colin Powell also had a private email server, which made no news). Many of us suspect that the Times was confident that Hillary would win and wanted to get a head start on the next Clinton scandal. History will not judge the media kindly, not least your paper.
2
This applies to the French, to quote Marvin Gaye, "believe half of what you see and none of what you hear". Americans probably the stupidest, most gullible and arrogant people on earth believe everything thrown their way, to the sublime to the ridiculous.
2
The biggest takeaway for the NYT and CNN, and other cable news channels was the stupidity of false equivalence. If you had front page about a Trump lie, you put a front page about emails. This was the wrong way to cover what was happening. How many front page articles did NYT have on Clinton policy positions when Trump had none? Never. Liz Spayd, your public editor could not have been more wrong when she suggested that reporters, not opinion writers, should NOT point out obvious, easily fact checked lies. She is a head that should roll in the debacle that was the NYT coverage. The rest of the editorial staff needs a wake up call to realize that equal coverage does not mean false equivalencies. You learned nothing from Judith Miller's coverage of the Iraq war. You went the easy sensational route when we needed a clear voice to get through all the noise.
4
Was Hillary's e-mails a non-issue? No. Was Hillary's e-mails an issue worth more than an article or two? Absolutely not. Was Hillary's e-mails worth splashing on the front page? rofl
How many New York Times issues had Hillary's e-mail on the front page? Dozens of times. A shameful misrepresentation of the scope of the issue.
Stop talking about "American media" as some unknown shadowy entity that lurks in the background. Start accepting your own specific part in how this played out. Acknowledging that you have a problem is the first and most important step to fixing it.
How many New York Times issues had Hillary's e-mail on the front page? Dozens of times. A shameful misrepresentation of the scope of the issue.
Stop talking about "American media" as some unknown shadowy entity that lurks in the background. Start accepting your own specific part in how this played out. Acknowledging that you have a problem is the first and most important step to fixing it.
3
For heaven's sake....you are fiddling while Rome is burning. Stop the infighting; focus on what Trump is getting away with: his financial dealings and those of his family, his ties with Russia, his ignorant cabinet choices, his half truths and endless broken promises. Fossil fuel and high income earners are his focus and the rest of the country/world be damned. I'd like to be positive but the only way I can do that is to look to France. Journalists and Democrats, keep your eye on the ball this time......it's rolling out of control.
2
What journalism in the last election. Seems to this subscriber that the Times helped do the 'number' on Clinton. Real journalism to a large extent is lost. Look at the American coverage of Venezuela, slanted and corporate, the lack of coverage for Palestinians or the propaganda network FOX. And now climate deniers on the editorial page because...fair and balanced like RT.
This article is a fair criticism of the corporate press
This article is a fair criticism of the corporate press
1
"...Clinton’s private server and the hacked emails crowded out everything else, including her plans for reducing inequality, addressing climate change and conducting a more hawkish foreign policy than Obama."
What plans for reducing inequality — a $12 minimum wage? What plans for addressing climate change — more fracking? And is a more hawkish foreign policy a DESIRABLE thing?
Who are you David Leonhardt?
What plans for reducing inequality — a $12 minimum wage? What plans for addressing climate change — more fracking? And is a more hawkish foreign policy a DESIRABLE thing?
Who are you David Leonhardt?
3
Leonhardt, typical simplistic american.
La France did what La France is best at......les francais simply IGNORED all the unsophisticated candidates and chose Macron. Macron advocated nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing....except to assert that France will always be France! whatever that means.
Nobody in France cares about those silly americans and their Trump president.
Nobody in France cares about stupid unsophisticated Russians lurking about hacking emails.
Nobody in France even cares about sinister Islamic terrorists plotting mayhem.
Comme si, comme ca.
Tout ca change, c'est la meme chose!
blah, blah, blah.
Macron simply stood out as the most "french" of candidates.
La France did what La France is best at......les francais simply IGNORED all the unsophisticated candidates and chose Macron. Macron advocated nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing....except to assert that France will always be France! whatever that means.
Nobody in France cares about those silly americans and their Trump president.
Nobody in France cares about stupid unsophisticated Russians lurking about hacking emails.
Nobody in France even cares about sinister Islamic terrorists plotting mayhem.
Comme si, comme ca.
Tout ca change, c'est la meme chose!
blah, blah, blah.
Macron simply stood out as the most "french" of candidates.
1
How can you take this columnist seriously when he includes sentences such as the following in his editorials?
'With a president who lies all the time, often about the media, journalism becomes all the more important.'
Really? How do you know he lies, Leonthardt or whatever your name is?
'With a president who lies all the time, often about the media, journalism becomes all the more important.'
Really? How do you know he lies, Leonthardt or whatever your name is?
3
You're a brave man, David, to go up against your editors ...so NOW you think that their evaluative skills are lacking?
Were you voicing the same opinion when Maggie Haberman's stories (and I do mean 'stories') were daily above the fold?
The NYTimes practiced lazy journalism and helped put Trump in office.
End of story.
Were you voicing the same opinion when Maggie Haberman's stories (and I do mean 'stories') were daily above the fold?
The NYTimes practiced lazy journalism and helped put Trump in office.
End of story.
2
The French voting public were smarter than American Voters And the French Media played it smart America Learn from your bitter lesson on who and what you voted for
1
And it looks like no lessons have been learned.
If trump is not expert at anything else, he knows how to play the media. That's how he got where he is, and he's already working in 2020. Because he has already announced, her is already amassing a campaign chest and more importantly is able to run campaign rallies that are free from the constraints of presidential appearances. He can limit access to ticket-holders only, which helps build an enormous data base for whipping up his supporters; he can have hecklers thrown out.
Bu there's an Achilles heel to staging rallies rather than presidential events. The media don't have to feel obligated to cover them live. To CNN and MSNBC: we know Fox will always show up, but you don't have to keep the free publicity machine rolling on and on.
If trump is not expert at anything else, he knows how to play the media. That's how he got where he is, and he's already working in 2020. Because he has already announced, her is already amassing a campaign chest and more importantly is able to run campaign rallies that are free from the constraints of presidential appearances. He can limit access to ticket-holders only, which helps build an enormous data base for whipping up his supporters; he can have hecklers thrown out.
Bu there's an Achilles heel to staging rallies rather than presidential events. The media don't have to feel obligated to cover them live. To CNN and MSNBC: we know Fox will always show up, but you don't have to keep the free publicity machine rolling on and on.
The media has been focusing on non news. While cultural wars, religious wars, identity wars are waged by the media, scientists from the Middle East have decided to dethrone America as the cradle of science. No more. Trump does not respect science nor scientists. Politicians are clueless when it comes to science, the media indulges in useless chatter. Meaningless. For decades now, our science labs, science departments in universities are manned by immigrants, doing the grunt work. With Trump disrespecting immigrants, defunding EPA, making a spectacle of H1 B visas (they hired you when profit was the bottom line, now its not politically ok?), scientists are moving on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/science/sesame-institute-jordan-synch...®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
You lose, America, big time. And you have the media's mis placed priorities to blame, for sure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/science/sesame-institute-jordan-synch...®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
You lose, America, big time. And you have the media's mis placed priorities to blame, for sure.
1
The American experiment was a distinctive one that all the world apprehended and inspired whenever possible. That is the French case. If it was not American election meddling, France could be vulnerable to same what we gained here. Macron's campaign warned of hacking and French were prepared for it, exploiting their security capabilities which may be more effective. Don't blame American democracy all the way. There are some notices of electoral imperfections to take in account, most are portrayed here. Trump reflections are incredibly recognized abroad, including France and Europe. That is the lesson France took in consideration ahead of their election.
1
For the decades that I have been an eligible voter, '68 to the present, presidential elections as presented by MSM have been glorified American Idol shows, highlighting personality over issues, scandal over mundane but vital matters of simple civics. Bombastic Trump won the Electoral College over a hard working woman who never mastered the microphone. Even serious and competent newspapers like the Times overemphasize the sensational personality driven new, like the release of emails, which never should have been published in the MSM, making them complicity with Assange and the Russians. We play to a unsophisticated citizenry that is celebrity obsessed, and treat the election as if it's a personality contest or a football game, rooting for a team no matter what. Elections are more that who's running on the top of the ticket. Hillary would have won if people gave more thought to the importance of gaining a Senate and House majority, who would be appointed to the Supreme Court, what kind of AG or head EPA would be chosen by the winner. I couldn't believe how many young voters who ascribed to Progressive policies were not attuned the ramifications of voting for a third party or abstaining. I kept hoping for more articles in the Times, Post, Huffington, the Nation that dug deeper, instead of getting caught up with what the campaigns wanted us to dwell on. They are master puppeteers, staging each day what they want to be the headlines in the next news cycle.
3
The problem with the press in the US is that after years of being labeled "liberal media" by the right wing they have been cowed into trying to avoid any hint of liberal bias. Of course right wing bias is OK because most of the media is owned by people and corporations with more to gain from right wing policies than from liberal or progressive ones.
This mea culpa is all well and good, but. American media in general is still, in the face of glaring evidence provided daily by this fraud of an administration, not living up to their responsibility as the fourth estate.
Take trump's rallies for example. He lies, insults, bullies, stokes the flames of racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and says the most outrageous nonsense and the media treats him with kid gloves, frequently applying a false equivalence narrative when there is no equivalent. The man is a textbook narcissist, who's surrounded himself with some very unsavory, unethical people intent on wreaking havoc within the institutions we depend on to maintain a civil, healthy and just nation. Yet so much of the reporting is no longer "hard hitting", it's tip toeing around what's obvious - this presidency is a five alarm fire and the press is going after it with a garden hose.
Take trump's rallies for example. He lies, insults, bullies, stokes the flames of racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and says the most outrageous nonsense and the media treats him with kid gloves, frequently applying a false equivalence narrative when there is no equivalent. The man is a textbook narcissist, who's surrounded himself with some very unsavory, unethical people intent on wreaking havoc within the institutions we depend on to maintain a civil, healthy and just nation. Yet so much of the reporting is no longer "hard hitting", it's tip toeing around what's obvious - this presidency is a five alarm fire and the press is going after it with a garden hose.
2
If there had been no Clinton email story, and if Gallup pollsters asked voters what they had been hearing about Clinton, voters would have mentioned some other perceived negative. The email story did control the outcome of the election. The vast majority of voters had already decided on their candidate. As shown by the outcome, many also were not honest when answering pollster's pre-election questions.
My goodness. However did the French voters get to elect their next President without the help of an electoral college? Who knows whether if they'd had our screwy and archaic system they might've ended up with Le Pen. We did.
2
" The Clinton emails were instead full of staff members jockeying for position, agonizing over strategy, complaining about their bosses and offering advice to those same bosses." But then didn't the Podesta emails contain copies of her GS speeches, in which she made nice about Simpson-Bowles???? This was not a good place to be....if you want Bernie supporters on your team.
As my wife and I were appalled by the non-stop harping on Hillary's emails as we watched news and campaign debates. While we preferred Bernie Sanders, we could clearly see that Hillary and the American public were getting a raw deal, that this focus was misleading and corrupting our election process. We were just as dismayed that Bernie supporters bought this, as we were discouraged to see Republicans latch onto an issue that we all participate in and have difficulty with in the age of email.
1
missing from this piece are is the fundamental difference in attitudes to the two candidates.Those not in favor of Macron were put off by his youth, inexperience, world view and elitist background.Those who did not support Clinton were concerned with her inability to tell the truth ,lack of accomplishments she could truly call her own.Others simply didn't like her as a person.another reason the US press handled the news differently.
1
Thank you for your honest admission that "The overhyped coverage of the hacked emails was the media’s worst mistake in 2016." As the months went by leading up to the election, my heart sank every day to see the press hitting the same note so that was all the world heard "the emails, the emails, the emails." I've always loved fine journalists, and always loved The New York TImes; I'd be lost without you. I hope your fellow journalists take your message to heart. They have enormous power, and must use it with care.
I read and treasure your op-ed pieces every day. Thank you again for shining a light on this issue.
Amie
I read and treasure your op-ed pieces every day. Thank you again for shining a light on this issue.
Amie
The Comey letter became infamous and another major distraction for the Clinton campaign because the media in general and television news in particular saw it as a ratings boost. Nothing about the letter itself was near as scandalous as it was reported. The absence of concern by many Americans (and especially those who believe they benefited) for Russian meddling is disheartening. The quest for power in this country is no longer concerned about majority rule but how power can be wrested away by whatever means.
2
Add this to the growing list of things other countries do better than America.
Journalism, especially cable news operations are no longer focused on serving as a medium through which to transmit information. This was the purpose of journalism and why it holds such a sacred place in civil society as to be included in the First Amendment Rights. If we are to be a self-governing people, then the people need to be educated, they need to be literate so that they can become informed about public affairs through obtaining information that they need to know from an independent and free press.
But look at what has happened to that idea. It has moved from providing information that we need to know, to information that we want to know. It has moved from an information service, to entertainment. After all, entertainment provides us with what we want too, but not necessarily what we need.
So the Clinton emails get put into that process and why be surprised at what comes out? Sensationalism, it is about ratings, how many viewers, not what they are viewing and digesting, just how many, because advertising dollars depend on the Nielson numbers.
As long as this paradigm exists in the American news business, then legitimate journalism will remain in the back seat and the bottom line will remain in the drivers seat. Russians know that. Trump knows it and plays on it. The American media is helpless in the hands of a master manipulator like Trump. Trump is ratings.
But look at what has happened to that idea. It has moved from providing information that we need to know, to information that we want to know. It has moved from an information service, to entertainment. After all, entertainment provides us with what we want too, but not necessarily what we need.
So the Clinton emails get put into that process and why be surprised at what comes out? Sensationalism, it is about ratings, how many viewers, not what they are viewing and digesting, just how many, because advertising dollars depend on the Nielson numbers.
As long as this paradigm exists in the American news business, then legitimate journalism will remain in the back seat and the bottom line will remain in the drivers seat. Russians know that. Trump knows it and plays on it. The American media is helpless in the hands of a master manipulator like Trump. Trump is ratings.
2
News is a huge money machine for broadcast media which was not the case when the Walter Cronkites and David Brinkleys were the face of it. The news divisions of the networks were not mere profit centers. Different world today. Les Moonves at CBS summed up best when he said Trump may not be good for the US but he's great for CBS.
CNN today is a joke- it's own parody that the best of SNL couldn't match- but the joke is on us.
CNN today is a joke- it's own parody that the best of SNL couldn't match- but the joke is on us.
1
Not only were the French journalists smarter than their U.S. counterparts, perhaps because they had the benefit of the U.S. experience, the French voters were smarter than U.S. voters.
The biggest media mistake was not the attention drawn to Clinton's emails, though it was a big mistake. The biggest mistake was all the free publicity the media fawned on Trump, enraptured by his outrageous behavior, and their failure to boycott press conferences and rallies when certain media were barred. The media needs to stand up for a free press. Perhaps a way to bring a publicity hound to heel is to deny him publicity if he won't accept the free press.
The biggest media mistake was not the attention drawn to Clinton's emails, though it was a big mistake. The biggest mistake was all the free publicity the media fawned on Trump, enraptured by his outrageous behavior, and their failure to boycott press conferences and rallies when certain media were barred. The media needs to stand up for a free press. Perhaps a way to bring a publicity hound to heel is to deny him publicity if he won't accept the free press.
2
I once wrote a critical letter of my brother which landed in his mailbox. It ended up being fine and cleared the air.
1
Our media is the kind that would make brothers fight where there is no fight at all. Because sensationalism sells, the media makes everything hyper sensational. Otherwise life would be so boring. You know how boring politics is. Oh the drudgery of governance, the policies, the tedious task of writing law. The media makes these into sensational news so that the public remains hooked on the media. Our media is like the toxic opioid that keeps us junk news addicted.
1
From outside the din of an election year, it was just clear that the GOP was using the released emails to divert from Trump's embarrassing campaign. It didn't matter what was in them. If the diversion wasn't thorough enough, they just created a false equivalency moment.
This seems to be a general problem with journalism and journalists also in the reporting of scientific research and frequently anything more technical: inability to evaluate quantitatively and weigh properly the importance of something. Why is it so difficult to say: this happened, but it is not so important or it is a provocative research finding but more research needs to be done to place it properly in context. Btw. this is generally not a climate change issue ... there the research has already been done ... but reporting of any little "red wine and chocolate" story as earth shattering diminishes the importance of truly earth-shattering stories.
It's ALL about false equalivancey. When someone is caught with their pants down, (almost literally), having any answer, almost sounds legitimate. Trump, could say or do anything, and he could always say, "Okay, but what about those emails?"
Hillary, gave Trump his "get out of jail free card." Contrast that, to Obama, who gave the Republicans, and any opposition, nothing. They had nothing to counter their obvious indiscretions, and falsehoods. (Think Romney, in a speech talking about the 47 percent, who contribute nothing).
The media contributes to the false equalivancey as well, because they want an equal contest. A contest that is equal, gets viewership, which is money in the bank for for the networks and cable. For every Trump insane utterance, the major media would drag out her emails for another look. They had to keep it close.
If she had been the boring nerd with a platinum resume, without the email/private server/entitled, "I'm hiding something," she would be President today. She knew all this, and that was the reason for the whole email thing from the get go, not giving the opposition a contrary talking point.
The whole thing had a lawyerly slight of hand feel to it. Of course, it was done on purpose, of course they were hiding her correspondence. Her feeble excuses were not credible in the least. And, Obama had to know she was using a private server, why didn't he stop it?
Hillary, gave Trump his "get out of jail free card." Contrast that, to Obama, who gave the Republicans, and any opposition, nothing. They had nothing to counter their obvious indiscretions, and falsehoods. (Think Romney, in a speech talking about the 47 percent, who contribute nothing).
The media contributes to the false equalivancey as well, because they want an equal contest. A contest that is equal, gets viewership, which is money in the bank for for the networks and cable. For every Trump insane utterance, the major media would drag out her emails for another look. They had to keep it close.
If she had been the boring nerd with a platinum resume, without the email/private server/entitled, "I'm hiding something," she would be President today. She knew all this, and that was the reason for the whole email thing from the get go, not giving the opposition a contrary talking point.
The whole thing had a lawyerly slight of hand feel to it. Of course, it was done on purpose, of course they were hiding her correspondence. Her feeble excuses were not credible in the least. And, Obama had to know she was using a private server, why didn't he stop it?
3
Smart and important. But how to fix this?
We need better, younger, more substantive, and yes charismatic candidates.
We need better, younger, more substantive, and yes charismatic candidates.
Were these stories a generational problem with the media. My millennial children didn't get the stories at all --- as if hacked emails is a big deal. Now, in my son's words, if they get your credit card information, that's bad, but hacking you emails--have at it dude.
1
This column misses the forest for the trees: Clinton 's emails were such a dominant subject of coverage because the Russian hackers, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks made sure it would be the dominant story of the campaign.
And ask yourself this: how can a reasonable, seasoned political reporter not get that Trump and his lapdogs would stop at nothing to win the election? Did anyone ever think Trump was honest and transparent? Of course not. So why did reporting of even the possibility of collusion over the leaked emails not dominate the news coverage, rather than the emilas themselves.
The fault of the media was one of an absence of disbelief. Better reporting would have quickly established the links between the hacking, Wikileaks and the Trump campaign. I will wager that Times' editors knew in their gut that this was the case, but whatever, the American news media was hoodwinked by propaganda in large part because it failed to admit to itself that what was happening right under its nose.
And ask yourself this: how can a reasonable, seasoned political reporter not get that Trump and his lapdogs would stop at nothing to win the election? Did anyone ever think Trump was honest and transparent? Of course not. So why did reporting of even the possibility of collusion over the leaked emails not dominate the news coverage, rather than the emilas themselves.
The fault of the media was one of an absence of disbelief. Better reporting would have quickly established the links between the hacking, Wikileaks and the Trump campaign. I will wager that Times' editors knew in their gut that this was the case, but whatever, the American news media was hoodwinked by propaganda in large part because it failed to admit to itself that what was happening right under its nose.
3
The difference is that France doesn't have a Fox News and Rush Limbaugh et al. Trump is spot on in complaining about fake news. It's coming from him and the right wing.
3
Our media, print and cable felt very free to enable Wikileaks and the Russians.
One up for the french journalism. The problem in the U.S. is that the News were commercialized, and the more sensational-sounding (even if garbage), the better. Plus a hefty dose of 'machismo', giving a real fraudster (Donald Trump) the benefit of the doubt. And now, we are paying the price for our foolishness, immaturity and neglect.Misogyny at a national scale. Cowed by a vulgar bully, our liar-in-chief. The U.S. press, with honorable exceptions, could learn something from the French. That is, if honesty is joined by humility, as it should.
1
Replying to Dave from Wisconsin. The true party of hate in this country is and has been for years, the republicans who wrap their message in a flag and thump their bibles while EXCLUDING anybody who is not a patriot or Christian or heterosexual or rabid anti abortionist. The proof is in the pudding. Look at the demographics. White folks exclusively voted for trump. Look at the Republican and democratic conventions held last year. You would have to be blind and tone deaf not to see what these two parties represent. Chants of lock her up?? I will agree that Hillary was never ever going to make a good presidential candidate. After thirty years of republican vitriol and hatred aimed at her and her husband, it seemed pretty implausible. Since when do we elect people because somehow it's their turn. The democrats are still leaderless. Just as the republicans are. Trump is and does represent the party of hate.
If Hillary's private email server was a "monstrosity," then what of W's private email server at the Republican National Committee? The one he used while President?
See http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-mil....
And even Trump's allies in Russia admit his people were using a private email server.
See https://www.rt.com/usa/375109-trump-administration-private-server-rnc/. Or, for a real journalistic source, see http://www.newsweek.com/trump-emails-rnc-reince-priebus-white-house-serv....
Where was the media obsession with W's private email server--the same one that Russia hacked? Where is the media obsession with Trump's private email server?
Let's face it. The Republicans are masters of manipulating the media. And the media keeps falling for it. The Dems have a lot of catching up to do.
See http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-mil....
And even Trump's allies in Russia admit his people were using a private email server.
See https://www.rt.com/usa/375109-trump-administration-private-server-rnc/. Or, for a real journalistic source, see http://www.newsweek.com/trump-emails-rnc-reince-priebus-white-house-serv....
Where was the media obsession with W's private email server--the same one that Russia hacked? Where is the media obsession with Trump's private email server?
Let's face it. The Republicans are masters of manipulating the media. And the media keeps falling for it. The Dems have a lot of catching up to do.
I cannot believe you said "Imagine for a moment that your inbox, or your boss’s, was released to the world. I’ll guess that it would not be free of embarrassment." This is absolutely irresponsible. You are spreading a hypothetical lie without thinking that there are many people that does not do what you think. You criticize the media and yet you’re doing it again. Didn’t you learn from the French? Just for the record: if you think all people are so stupid to write emails that will embarrass them you are completely wrong. We do not care if our emails go out for everyone to see; there is nothing there but junk mail we receive and we never write anything of substance to reply. In fact, emails go out with a brief inconsequential sentence or are unanswered or deleted. If we see links the email is deleted. Important things are never written in emails but rather said in private and person-to-person. I hope you got a lesson from this commentator.
2
I agree with you, the server was not a "nonstory." I didn't like the careless handling of our government correspondence that Clinton was guilty of. But in the end, that's all the FBI decided it was: careless handling of our government correspondence. There were no top secret leaks to the enemy. There was no treason. There was no digital equivalent of the old "loose lips sink ships." None. That little canard of culpability was kept alive day after day, week after week, month after month by Republicans on Fake News Talk TV and they even bragged about it. Clinton looking a little more popular? Bring up the Emails!!!! Then they would chuckle because their constituency of dupes bought it all, hook, line and sinker.
And eventually the emails did become a nonstory. Even when Comey found more emails on an aide's computer he should have presented them as most likely copies of what the FBI had already reviewed, which as it turned out, they were. His letter did not say that, just that more were found. Stupid.
When the campaign emails came out I was impressed by how utterly boring they were. The best one was her staff trying to figure out a pithy campaign slogan. I think there were forty or fifty tries ending with "I'm with Her!" which I thought was not all that inspired.
But the media again made a giant deal out of it. And, again, people responded by thinking it was some big deal. It was not.
The French have common sense. Americans do not. How did this happen?
And eventually the emails did become a nonstory. Even when Comey found more emails on an aide's computer he should have presented them as most likely copies of what the FBI had already reviewed, which as it turned out, they were. His letter did not say that, just that more were found. Stupid.
When the campaign emails came out I was impressed by how utterly boring they were. The best one was her staff trying to figure out a pithy campaign slogan. I think there were forty or fifty tries ending with "I'm with Her!" which I thought was not all that inspired.
But the media again made a giant deal out of it. And, again, people responded by thinking it was some big deal. It was not.
The French have common sense. Americans do not. How did this happen?
2
A headline during the election concerning one of Trump’s earlier insanities was - Trump’s plan to seize Iraq’s oil: “It’s not stealing, we’re reimbursing ourselves” The word “reimbursing” is now being used in context with Trump’s assertion that he will force Mexico to pay for the wall. Trump reiterated that he would have seized Iraq’s oil recently at a speech to the CIA. This raises the prospect of Trump using military force to seize Mexican gulf oil assets to reimburse the cost of the wall. In terms of the worst things that could ever happen to the USA, military conflict with Mexico when at least 10% of the American population is of Mexican heritage has to be high on the list.
A war with Mexico over payment for the wall is not the only potential war Trump might cause.
“…The question then becomes what did Putin hope to gain by aiding Trump? For argument's sake, assume that Trump had agreed to do Putin's bidding. What Russia and Putin desperately need is money. Even if Putin asked Trump to have the American Treasury transfer, say $200 billion to Russia, that is not going to happen. Even Kellyanne Conway could not spin that one. Absent writing Russia a big check, how could Trump cause Russia to gain $200 billion? The answer would be a $50 increase in the price of oil.
We know what has caused most of the oil price spikes in the last 50 years.
That has been wars in the Middle East. The first oil shock came with the 1973 war..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034048
A war with Mexico over payment for the wall is not the only potential war Trump might cause.
“…The question then becomes what did Putin hope to gain by aiding Trump? For argument's sake, assume that Trump had agreed to do Putin's bidding. What Russia and Putin desperately need is money. Even if Putin asked Trump to have the American Treasury transfer, say $200 billion to Russia, that is not going to happen. Even Kellyanne Conway could not spin that one. Absent writing Russia a big check, how could Trump cause Russia to gain $200 billion? The answer would be a $50 increase in the price of oil.
We know what has caused most of the oil price spikes in the last 50 years.
That has been wars in the Middle East. The first oil shock came with the 1973 war..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034048
1
all media has been infected with right wing garbage from FOX, limbaugh et al. the echo has been long enough and loud enough that they stupidly and repeatedly treat it as real news. maybe the specter of the trump disaster unfolding will scare them straight again..... but i doubt it. their audience has followed them down the ignorance trail.
2
why, of course- its completely predictable that you would consider this to be an over hyped story, with the not so subtle suggestion that this cost the worst candidate in the history of the modern democratic party the election. This just in- the Russians did not steal ONE single vote from the Democratic nominee. The fact that, according the the FEC, the federal bureaucracy donated to democrats at at 90% rate is THE most underrated story ever. Democrats appear to be simply incapable of moving through the stages of grief. They are stuck in anger and denial, and may remain so for the indefinite future. That the media is so relentlessly hyping the story- with less than a scintilla of evidence to support it- should tell the public everything they need to know about media bias. The republicans- as presently constituted- are reprehensible. The Democrats? they're just impotent and angry. I detest the Republican party- but give me reprehensible over over impotent and angry any day
1
I'm quite sure that the LA Times, New York Times and other real newspapers knew that the 11th-hour Clinton e-mail revelation was all hype and no substance. But in the face of the click-bait news outlets, web sites that will link to any story as long as it's popular, real newspapers run the risk of losing even more readers if they don't print garbage like everyone else. Also, refusing to run trash-stories gives more fuel to the Alt-right and Fox who regularly condemn real newspapers for not printing their propaganda. Here's to hoping that the remaining Americans who have brain cells will support investigative journalism and newspapers that maintain some sort of threshold when it comes to printing nonsense. These days, most American "news" outlets post whatever opinions appear on the blogosphere and call it news. Newspapers that refuse to do that, are worth our support.
1
David,
You take issue with the media on the attention they gave to Clinton's emails, & rightly so. However, the emails pale when one considers that the free advertisement the Media gave to Trump, & I believe were responsible for creating this monster.It started with the birthright fiasco, which gave Trump the attention he needed to even be considered a nominee for President. During the preliminaries he demonstrated callousness & his thug like character & the Media ate it up, they couldn't get enough of it, he was the headlines.
The question the media must ask themselves are they going to be Journalists or business men, you can't be both. Journalists like Doctors strive to cure the decease, while business men are only concerned with the bottom line.
You take issue with the media on the attention they gave to Clinton's emails, & rightly so. However, the emails pale when one considers that the free advertisement the Media gave to Trump, & I believe were responsible for creating this monster.It started with the birthright fiasco, which gave Trump the attention he needed to even be considered a nominee for President. During the preliminaries he demonstrated callousness & his thug like character & the Media ate it up, they couldn't get enough of it, he was the headlines.
The question the media must ask themselves are they going to be Journalists or business men, you can't be both. Journalists like Doctors strive to cure the decease, while business men are only concerned with the bottom line.
3
Why does no one talk about the content of some of these emails? After all the Russians didn't fake them. They show that Hillary Clinton knew years ago that Saudi Arabia was funding ISIS. Why was this kept secret from the American people? What geopolitical plan required the otherwise unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Iraqi civilians?
2
"The overhyped coverage of the hacked emails was the media’s worst mistake in 2016".
No, the media’s worst mistake, actually lets make that plural, mistakes, in 2016 were its reprehensible treatment of Bernie Sanders. Then there was the parroting of fake news through the primaries and election including the powder puff treatment of Trump.
Email articles were daily as Nov. 8 approached. The Times treatment of the entire process was, again, reprehensible.
No, the media’s worst mistake, actually lets make that plural, mistakes, in 2016 were its reprehensible treatment of Bernie Sanders. Then there was the parroting of fake news through the primaries and election including the powder puff treatment of Trump.
Email articles were daily as Nov. 8 approached. The Times treatment of the entire process was, again, reprehensible.
How is that Russian collusion (biased, false) theory going now that Senator Diane Feinstein went to the C.I.A. and had a half a minute Wolff Blitzer interview where she said: "there is no evidence." But conveniently CNN did not promote.
In France, some of the main TV stations are state-owned, although editorially independent. The major newspapers are of the same girth as the NYT or the WAPO, but are read more widely, and have a reputation to uphold. Fore sure, France, too, has gutter press and tabloids and sensation-driven "news" outlets, but the attention accorded to these is far less than in the US. People who read tabloids do realize that they shouldn't expect worthwhile journalism from them. So, reducing the mail-dump to its rightful proportions isn't much of a challenge in France. Also, and perhaps crucially, the authorities do not take kindly to anything that would amount to an attempt to manipulate the elections...
1
Unfortunately the American media is as much about sensationalism as it is about news. The NY Times is one of the best overall but even they fell into the trap of nothing but Trump-time all the time during the last election. I can't tell you how many days I looked at the NY Times website and it was like 5 articles about Trump (many often with a tabloid-y tint), with one buried article about Clinton. If you want to just print what sells papers you won't have much space left for the topics which really matter (to the core readership), and your integrity becomes suspect.
1
Perhaps if the initial news in France well before the election had been that Macron had a private email server in his basement that he used for finance department government business even when he knew not to, from which he sent classified material to an aide, and from which he sent other material to an aide who then forwarded it that material on to her non-security-clearance husband for printing, the French media would not have been so sanguine. IMHO, it would have helped Francois Fillon and not MLP, but that's another speculation entirely.
(Parenthetically, the NYT has an unfortunate habit of conflation (immigration and illegal immigration; hacked email from the DNC and a private server in a basement), and this op-ed carries on that undesirable tradition. )
(Parenthetically, the NYT has an unfortunate habit of conflation (immigration and illegal immigration; hacked email from the DNC and a private server in a basement), and this op-ed carries on that undesirable tradition. )
What is the evidence that Russians hacked Hillary's emails anyway? They are not stupid, one would think they hacked the Republican emails too.
Trump traitorously encouraged Russia to steal Clinton's emails. The French media had no interest in fencing stolen material, period. American journalists proved stolen scoops drive sales, and too many Americans fell in with their dishonor.
What's the difference between "lies" and being "not fully honest"?
2
"The overhyped coverage of the hacked emails was the media's worst mistake in 2016"
And the NYT was right there, front and center, with article after article and front-page headline after front-page headline. Let's not generalize too much about "The Media"... they have names.
And the NYT was right there, front and center, with article after article and front-page headline after front-page headline. Let's not generalize too much about "The Media"... they have names.
As always is the case, the GOP/conservatives are on the wrong side of Matt 7: 3-5. "But her emails!!!!"
"The media...should not pretend that the only two options are neglect and sensationalism. There is a middle ground...where journalistic judgement should prioritize news over the whiff of news."
somewhere in that middle ground, before we get to the oxy-moronic gag about journalistic judgement, there are the documents themselves the ones that demonstrate the malfeasance of the DNC in smothering the sanders campaign, the ones that demonstrate a cynicism confirmed by the baskets, the ones that reveal the wink to wall street...even the ones that the times would have us believe are ordinary have value as pieces in a puzzle that intelligence agents who find them can use to make pictures.
beyond content however, and the reasons for the focus, are the "extereme carelessness" in handling classified information, in the server itself and in the dump of thousands of emails into anthony weiner's copy shop.
and there was one, that mentioned the name, not a code name, of an iranian who came to the usa, got cozy with intell agencies here, changed his mind and went back to iran, was arrested and executed...you could look it up.
hardly the pentagon papers, but nothing to gloss...in the current hearings on the russian hack, if one listens to the talk about the dangers of carelessness with classified information and the criminality therein, the pitfalls of compromise and blackmail, etc., and just missed the names of those whose behavior is at issue, H(R)C and associates would fit nicely.
somewhere in that middle ground, before we get to the oxy-moronic gag about journalistic judgement, there are the documents themselves the ones that demonstrate the malfeasance of the DNC in smothering the sanders campaign, the ones that demonstrate a cynicism confirmed by the baskets, the ones that reveal the wink to wall street...even the ones that the times would have us believe are ordinary have value as pieces in a puzzle that intelligence agents who find them can use to make pictures.
beyond content however, and the reasons for the focus, are the "extereme carelessness" in handling classified information, in the server itself and in the dump of thousands of emails into anthony weiner's copy shop.
and there was one, that mentioned the name, not a code name, of an iranian who came to the usa, got cozy with intell agencies here, changed his mind and went back to iran, was arrested and executed...you could look it up.
hardly the pentagon papers, but nothing to gloss...in the current hearings on the russian hack, if one listens to the talk about the dangers of carelessness with classified information and the criminality therein, the pitfalls of compromise and blackmail, etc., and just missed the names of those whose behavior is at issue, H(R)C and associates would fit nicely.
1
I once worked as a reporter and news manager in DC sending stories to dozens of local television stations across the nation, totaling somewhere between 80 and 100 stations over time. We endeavored to find out as much as we could about members of Congress, a prime concern. On repeated occasions, but not frequently, we would have stations refuse news stories even a month before an election saying that they did not want to run anything that might effect the outcome. I was shocked. I thought informing the public about their choices was a key function of journalism and I still do.
The timidness of these stations sprang from an excess of caution from the era when complying with FCC rules scared the pants off station owners. Licenses were seldom revoked and, now, almost never are, but fear can be powerful nonetheless.
Most television news departments were not so hesitant, but nor were they particularly brave. Some eagerly embraced controversial issues while many would shy away from anything that might cause trouble.
As for Clinton's email problems, it is completely clear that the major national media last year overplayed them. The Republicans on Capitol Hill never stopped pushing the issue, too.
Another factor in the mistakes: having been subjected to decades of unending attacks as biased against the right, major media now bend the other way to avoid confirming the charge. The right wing just keeps repeating the charges to the point where they are accepted by mere repetition.
44
The French lesson for me is that both the French media and their ordinary citizens are by and large much more smarter than their American counterparts here. They had the smarts to recognize and elect a real leader, one who is inclusive and futuristic, as opposed to us who couldn't tell the difference between a self serving narcissistic liar and a woman who spent her entire life fighting for what is right, be it woman's rights or human rights.
The French lesson for me is that while we with our so called president travel back in time, other nations like France and Germany are poised to take the lead whether it is on global matters such as climate change or international trade.
The French lesson for me is that in the next few years we should expect to see a brain drain from the US to Europe. I distinctly heard Macron say their doors were open to scientists. Almost simultaneously I learnt that Trump's administration had fired our scientists. Guess where they will be headed. Already our universities are experiencing a low foreign enrollment. No more Einsteins crossing the seas for better opportunities here - at least not in the near future.
The French lesson for me is that if we want to turn our country around, we like the French, should "Resist and Persist". They did so hundreds of years ago during their revolution and learnt from that experience. We being a younger country will hopefully learn from our current situation and never let this happen again.
The French lesson for me is that while we with our so called president travel back in time, other nations like France and Germany are poised to take the lead whether it is on global matters such as climate change or international trade.
The French lesson for me is that in the next few years we should expect to see a brain drain from the US to Europe. I distinctly heard Macron say their doors were open to scientists. Almost simultaneously I learnt that Trump's administration had fired our scientists. Guess where they will be headed. Already our universities are experiencing a low foreign enrollment. No more Einsteins crossing the seas for better opportunities here - at least not in the near future.
The French lesson for me is that if we want to turn our country around, we like the French, should "Resist and Persist". They did so hundreds of years ago during their revolution and learnt from that experience. We being a younger country will hopefully learn from our current situation and never let this happen again.
70
Dear Sarah,
"...much, more smarter..."
I guess I agree with you.
"...much, more smarter..."
I guess I agree with you.
1
To quote you, "both the French media and their ordinary citizens are by and large much more smarter than their American counterparts here". Nice illustration of that theory!!
Give me a break: The emails released during the American election season proved that the DNC was actively sabotaging Bernie Sanders' campaign. These were the truly damning emails for Hillary Clinton. It caused millions of Sanders supporters to sit at home for the general election or to vote for anyone but Hillary. The French Campaign had nothing to compare to this so no comparison can be made. Also, and most importantly, you have to release emails weeks or even months before an election for the story to set in and build. The emails that proved that the Sanders campaign was sabotaged were released in July. The general election was in November, which gave the story time to build. In the French Election, the release happened right before the election. There is no comparison to be made because on the eve of the election there's no time to sway anyone.
24
So you are happy with Trump as President. I get that.
2
The private server problem was a fake construct as many Secretaries of State used them before Hillary Clinton. As to Bernie Sanders can you or anyone prove that she is the one who gave the order to sabotage. The truth is that Comey has no right to speak about an ongoing investigation, and for this the whole world will pay the price unless Trump self destructs
3
I don't think the Sanders' disadvantage, however we view it, had remotely the significance as did the stark choice between the political contagion that was Trump, since proven on a dramatic scale, and his more conventional but damaged and imperfect opponent, Hillary. Anyone with a functioning intellect should have realized the existential threat Trump and his growing amoral GOP acolytes posed to America and voted accordingly. Those voters who didn't, need to reflect on their notion of patriotism and their basic decision-making skills.
3
Clickbait is just another way of saying that we present news as a way to make dollars, not sense. We've gone past infotainment and straight into selling out.
Some print journalism remains more balanced and fact based. And the bias shows subtilely - in what is covered and how it is placed - rather than the more rabid FOX formula of shouts and lies to get a political message across.
The E-mail story was clickbait for some journalists - a way to get people to read the news, and see the ad - and propaganda for others - a way to falsely paint a candidate according to a pre-set narrative. We fell for both.
I put most blame on American voters who can't seem to tell true and false even if the story sounds like it should be printed next to an expose on Bat Boy and has been discredited on Snopes. How about Jeannie Pirro's outraged exclamation that Shariah Law had taken over Birmingham, England?
But the rest of the blame goes to capitalism. We'd sell snake oil to sick children. We'd sell grandma for a buck. And we won't sell the truth if something else makes more money.
Some print journalism remains more balanced and fact based. And the bias shows subtilely - in what is covered and how it is placed - rather than the more rabid FOX formula of shouts and lies to get a political message across.
The E-mail story was clickbait for some journalists - a way to get people to read the news, and see the ad - and propaganda for others - a way to falsely paint a candidate according to a pre-set narrative. We fell for both.
I put most blame on American voters who can't seem to tell true and false even if the story sounds like it should be printed next to an expose on Bat Boy and has been discredited on Snopes. How about Jeannie Pirro's outraged exclamation that Shariah Law had taken over Birmingham, England?
But the rest of the blame goes to capitalism. We'd sell snake oil to sick children. We'd sell grandma for a buck. And we won't sell the truth if something else makes more money.
77
There is no good evidence that the hacked emails were decisive. What certainly affected Clinton was her drop in favorability rating from 74% in 2012 to 42% in early 2016 (HuffPo aggregates). The only thing that made Clinton competitive at all was the even worse ratings of Trump - both were set to break the record for low approval of a new President. Where the conduct of the media - including the Times - should be examined is in the amplification of the fake Benghazi and email server "scandals" starting in 2012. Was there anything like this in the French media?
The media were just as ready to publicize the late-campaign gaffes and scandals of Trump but the favorability ratings of neither candidate show any effect from these things.
The media were just as ready to publicize the late-campaign gaffes and scandals of Trump but the favorability ratings of neither candidate show any effect from these things.
3
What I found ironic about Ms. Clinton's released emails was that there was so little discussion of what it might have looked like if emails from the Trump campaign had been released as well. I bet they would have been at least as "damaging" as the Clinton ones.
I've been corresponding by email for at least 30 years, and it took a while, but I finally learned that you should assume that whatever you write in an email will probably eventually end up in the inbox of the person you least want to see it.
I've been corresponding by email for at least 30 years, and it took a while, but I finally learned that you should assume that whatever you write in an email will probably eventually end up in the inbox of the person you least want to see it.
24
Dear Frances Menzel,
Perhaps the Republican emails would have been entertaining as well, but the Donald was tweeting all over the place and I get the impression that his emails would be just a rehash of his twitter account. The other people in his campaign would have been fascinating...Flynn, Priebus, Bannon
Perhaps the Republican emails would have been entertaining as well, but the Donald was tweeting all over the place and I get the impression that his emails would be just a rehash of his twitter account. The other people in his campaign would have been fascinating...Flynn, Priebus, Bannon
1
Mrs. Clinton, who was apparently well versed in the reasons why to use private email after she viewed former staffers accounts to judge "loyalty", could have diffused the email story by just being forthright about what she did, but she wasn't, she was counting on her biased press friends to underplay the story and it back fired. She created her own problems and she should just acknowledge that a lot of Trump voters didn't like him- they just didn't trust her and had experienced her refusal to be transparent in the past.
4
sorry but that doesn't explain it for me....if Hillary is not transparent, that's one thing...that's a typical politician keeping things close to the vest...but Trump is more than that as a pathological know nothing liar, a con artist....what were people thinking?
2
Agreed. If she had released the emails herself, that would have stolen the leaker's thunder, and we'd all have had time to mull over their banality.
What I don't understand is that voters didn't trust Clinton because she was somewhat dishonest about emails. But how did they trust Trump who's been lying and abusive to everyone right from the start of the campaign?? All I can see is that Clinton didn't receive fair treatment!
1
Good column, but those of us not wanting Trump as President were screaming about this lack context months before the election. The email hype gave diehard Sanders' followers the excuse to vote for totally unqualified (or unserious) third-party candidates, and allowed moderate Republicans, appalled by Trump, to nevertheless vote for him as Clinton was "as bad." So, kuddos for waking up, David. Where were you last summer?
35
And I add to this, did you think about waking up The New York Times about their own breathless coverage of the Clinton emails?
2
Three things stand out. First, France retains some regulations over its media. We gave that up when Reagan removed the Fairness Doctrine requiring equal time for candidates so all sides could weigh in on a matter of importance. That was the beginning of our present de-regulation free for all.
Second. the United States is served by six media giants. Six for a population of over 300 million people, which is down from 50 in 1983. This consolidation is another gift of the Reagan administration, creating virtual monopoly power. They control what we hear, think, believe, and desire. They shape our discourse and not in a positive way.
Third, this consolidation promotes and sustains a very shallow discourse, one based on sensationalism and entertainment. It ignores issues that it finds inconvenient. We do not discuss poverty, homelessness, climate change, policy or a host of extremely important issues in any detail. Instead, we know what Ivanka is wearing. Trump played this like a violin to garner substantial coverage during the campaign. You decided that Tweets were news.
Finally, France has no equivalent to Fox News and hate radio pumping out truly false "news" daily. The importance of Murdoch's influence in the coarsening and polarization of politics in this country cannot be overstated. It equals the propaganda arm of Russian media.
Unless the above issues are taken as seriously as they deserve, the information we receive will remain trite. France has news; we have noise.
Second. the United States is served by six media giants. Six for a population of over 300 million people, which is down from 50 in 1983. This consolidation is another gift of the Reagan administration, creating virtual monopoly power. They control what we hear, think, believe, and desire. They shape our discourse and not in a positive way.
Third, this consolidation promotes and sustains a very shallow discourse, one based on sensationalism and entertainment. It ignores issues that it finds inconvenient. We do not discuss poverty, homelessness, climate change, policy or a host of extremely important issues in any detail. Instead, we know what Ivanka is wearing. Trump played this like a violin to garner substantial coverage during the campaign. You decided that Tweets were news.
Finally, France has no equivalent to Fox News and hate radio pumping out truly false "news" daily. The importance of Murdoch's influence in the coarsening and polarization of politics in this country cannot be overstated. It equals the propaganda arm of Russian media.
Unless the above issues are taken as seriously as they deserve, the information we receive will remain trite. France has news; we have noise.
49
Absolutly right:
Read this to see the colusion:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-bre...
https://patribotics.blog/2017/04/01/alfa-bank-trump-tower-and-a-social-m...
Read this to see the colusion:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-bre...
https://patribotics.blog/2017/04/01/alfa-bank-trump-tower-and-a-social-m...
Nora_01's comment is an excellent diagnosis--I hope not a permanent post-mortem--of this nation's intentional abuse of the free press. The only reason to protect it in the First Amendment, right along with speech and religious choice, is that a free press enables democracy. 2016 shows graphically what happens with an UNinformed or MISinformed electorate. We cannot cast responsible votes if we know nothing relevant about candidates and issues, and there have been forces at work for forty years or more to make sure that's what happens. I would only add the fatal incentive of the 24-hour news cycle, numerous cable channels with nothing worth airing but a lot of air time to fill.
1
Agree with you, David.
There wasn't much in any of these Macron emails, just like there wasn't much in the Hillary/Democratic Party emails. Media is this country has been reduced to acting like lawyers in TV dramas--looking for a "gotcha" to get the witness on the stand to confess. Thousands of emails and they find a couple minor nothings. Yet they contort themselves to to create an angle for some kind of story. In their search for a headline or clickbait, they missed the big narrative, which was that outsiders, possibly in coordination with the Russian government, were trying to manipulate our election through information theft and selective release of that information. None of that was reported on until much later. Instead, we mostly got micro-stories about who said what snarky comments about whom.
If the big gotcha in the Hillary emails was that the DNC wanted Hillary to win instead of Bernie, that is no bigger a story than the RNC wanted Trump to lose the nomination. Until, of course, he won it.
There wasn't much in any of these Macron emails, just like there wasn't much in the Hillary/Democratic Party emails. Media is this country has been reduced to acting like lawyers in TV dramas--looking for a "gotcha" to get the witness on the stand to confess. Thousands of emails and they find a couple minor nothings. Yet they contort themselves to to create an angle for some kind of story. In their search for a headline or clickbait, they missed the big narrative, which was that outsiders, possibly in coordination with the Russian government, were trying to manipulate our election through information theft and selective release of that information. None of that was reported on until much later. Instead, we mostly got micro-stories about who said what snarky comments about whom.
If the big gotcha in the Hillary emails was that the DNC wanted Hillary to win instead of Bernie, that is no bigger a story than the RNC wanted Trump to lose the nomination. Until, of course, he won it.
21
The Podesta emails showed a Hillary 180 degrees from the one playing a "Progressive that likes to get things done" against a real Progressive- Senator Bernie Sanders. The media- including this paper- dealt less than honestly with readers and the public in it's partisan coverage of Ms Clinton and that extended beyond the editorial side of the paper.
Stop using Wikileaks as a whipping boy. They provide a valuable service to society, especially in one where many in the media think themselves the sole arbiters of what is important.
As to Ms Clinton's use of a personal email server, she should be prosecuted for it and President Obama- if he knew of it- should have fired her for it. Use of a private email account and server to conduct government business violates the most basic tenets of information security. If this had been done by someone in uniform they could have been subject to Court-Martial. Having served in the military and having held high level security clearances, I speak from direct knowledge.
Beyond the strict classifications, much information is sensitive but not classified. A mosaic assembled from such non-classified information can yield accurate information that is classified. Ms Clinton's calling card is supposedly how smart she is, and this action is as bone-headed as any that she could have done.
Mr Macron was at the time a private citizen- not an elected official. There is no equivalence.
Stop using Wikileaks as a whipping boy. They provide a valuable service to society, especially in one where many in the media think themselves the sole arbiters of what is important.
As to Ms Clinton's use of a personal email server, she should be prosecuted for it and President Obama- if he knew of it- should have fired her for it. Use of a private email account and server to conduct government business violates the most basic tenets of information security. If this had been done by someone in uniform they could have been subject to Court-Martial. Having served in the military and having held high level security clearances, I speak from direct knowledge.
Beyond the strict classifications, much information is sensitive but not classified. A mosaic assembled from such non-classified information can yield accurate information that is classified. Ms Clinton's calling card is supposedly how smart she is, and this action is as bone-headed as any that she could have done.
Mr Macron was at the time a private citizen- not an elected official. There is no equivalence.
6
Wikileaks provides a valuable service to someone, not necessarily Americans.
A truly valuable service would have leaked RNC emails, Sanders' emails, Stein's emails. So that we could get a complete picture of the back room dealings of all campaigns.
But then that wasn't the goal of Wikileaks, was it?
A truly valuable service would have leaked RNC emails, Sanders' emails, Stein's emails. So that we could get a complete picture of the back room dealings of all campaigns.
But then that wasn't the goal of Wikileaks, was it?
1
Why would Clinton be fired or prosecuted when she broke no laws and followed the practice and advice of her predecessors?
2
Re Rita California
Senator Sanders was not hiding his true positions like Hillary was. She made speeches at Goldman and other Wall Street firms advocating the very opposite of what she claimed in her campaign to be supporting. That would make her at minimum a two-faced liar. She promised to release them and then didn't as she never intended to. So stop the false equivalence. Bernie is a public servant and Hillary is a Grifter.
By comparison, Senator Sanders is consistent and does not change his position with every tracking poll. Long before it was accepted by the masses he defended the LGBT community while Ms Clinton was openly supporting discrimination against them as recently as her 2008 campaign. There are many other issues like this- watching Congressman and later Senator Sanders grill Alan Greenspan over many years showed there was a problem on Wall Street and at the Fed- this while Hillary praised light touch regulation and these trade scam deals masquerading as free trade.
Wikileaks bit Hillary right at her most vulnerable point- her tendency to tell people whatever she thinks will get her what she wants. I did not vote for Trump, but am quite happy Evita of Little Rock lost. That was and is a great service to America. Julian Assange may be in a London Embassy, but Hillary is not in the White House.
Senator Sanders was not hiding his true positions like Hillary was. She made speeches at Goldman and other Wall Street firms advocating the very opposite of what she claimed in her campaign to be supporting. That would make her at minimum a two-faced liar. She promised to release them and then didn't as she never intended to. So stop the false equivalence. Bernie is a public servant and Hillary is a Grifter.
By comparison, Senator Sanders is consistent and does not change his position with every tracking poll. Long before it was accepted by the masses he defended the LGBT community while Ms Clinton was openly supporting discrimination against them as recently as her 2008 campaign. There are many other issues like this- watching Congressman and later Senator Sanders grill Alan Greenspan over many years showed there was a problem on Wall Street and at the Fed- this while Hillary praised light touch regulation and these trade scam deals masquerading as free trade.
Wikileaks bit Hillary right at her most vulnerable point- her tendency to tell people whatever she thinks will get her what she wants. I did not vote for Trump, but am quite happy Evita of Little Rock lost. That was and is a great service to America. Julian Assange may be in a London Embassy, but Hillary is not in the White House.
2
Having never worked for a news organization or been involved in news "reporting" in general, I nevertheless can imagine what the pressures of being on top of, or even ahead of the news, must feel like for those who have to navigate their way through the daily maze of information, some of it being totally bogus or not worthy of front page headlines. The ethical and moral implications of not "getting it right" should override any consideration for scooping the other guy, but as we know, that's not always the case. The results of not doing due diligence can adversely affect the news cycle, and worse, clearly false news may be reported as being factual. Until the media, in any form, can figure out how to balance the need-to-report-it mentality with honest, timely reporting, I can foresee the media giants in constant battle with one another to beat the other guy to the news punch.
6
Give the media a little wiggle room for being used. Comey, for reasons still unclear, had by his own testimony before congress, an active investigation of Russian interference in our election including the Trump team's disturbing Russian connections. If he had been morally moved to reveal this before the election, investigative journalists would have likely done a better job.
8
Having covered campaigns during an earlier political era, newspapers did not publish - unless it was fresh news - late hits on the candidates. The weekend before an election, newspapers ran more benign stories of recapping the campaigns, weekend features, and the editorial boards would run a list of endorsements without further commentary.
Cable TV news changed all that, and now the tail is wagging the dog.
Cable TV news changed all that, and now the tail is wagging the dog.
12
The news outlets, especially the broadcast news, has to take more responsibility for the way tragic mass shootings unfold one after the other in this country. Television news has the power to plant ideas in the minds of some very sick people. After every major shooting tragedy, dozens of images of mass murderers posing with guns are splashed all over evening television. Does anyone in these major news organization examine their reports from the point of view of the next potential mass murderer? Irresponsible broadcast reporting may be partly responsible for later killings because of inadvertent glorification of a sicko in possession of an automatic weapon.
Yes, the media does need to take more responsibility--on many fronts.
Yes, the media does need to take more responsibility--on many fronts.
3
I agree that the American news media has some real soul searching to do. They need to change their mission from entertainment to serious news. I admire Bernie Sanders -- whenever he is interviewed, the "journalist" always asks him a question to try and get him to criticize another politician, but Bernie always deflects the question and goes straight to talking about the issue, rather than the individual. The media could learn a lesson from this -- in the short term, people may enjoy the tit-for-tat of name calling, but in the long run, it is harmful to our democracy and society. Stick to the issues and discuss them in a balanced non-hyperbolic manner!
10
The media is transparently partisan.
Both parties have their supportive news outlets, yet the majority of the large news outlets were shamelessly biased in favor of the Democrats and Hillary during the election.
While the MSM did their best to position Hillary's email travails as a minor issue, the missing 30,000 "personal" emails were not so easily dismissed by people who know one does not all of a sudden decide to delete their entire personal email history.
The media tries to control information as much by what they don't report as what they do report.
For example, it appears now that the Obama administration was not only spying on Trump during the election, but Bernie and many of the other candidates. My guess is you will not hear much about this from the MSM until it is so painfully obvious that they can't not mention it.
Partisanship has clouded news organizations' ability or desire to report.
Both parties have their supportive news outlets, yet the majority of the large news outlets were shamelessly biased in favor of the Democrats and Hillary during the election.
While the MSM did their best to position Hillary's email travails as a minor issue, the missing 30,000 "personal" emails were not so easily dismissed by people who know one does not all of a sudden decide to delete their entire personal email history.
The media tries to control information as much by what they don't report as what they do report.
For example, it appears now that the Obama administration was not only spying on Trump during the election, but Bernie and many of the other candidates. My guess is you will not hear much about this from the MSM until it is so painfully obvious that they can't not mention it.
Partisanship has clouded news organizations' ability or desire to report.
4
After suffering through two bouts of my Yahoo account being used for spoofing, I very gladly eliminated my email history when I closed my account.
"It now appears Obama was spying on Trump"? Where did you get that evidence, Trump's Twitter feed? Enough with the alternative facts!
2
Unfortunately, media that is reliant on profit and eyeballs and clicks will never reach the objective utopia and discretion that is described here. The only thing that keeps for profit companies on the straight and narrow are strong laws and regulations, otherwise they all race to the lowest common denominator which serves no one but themselves and their shareholders.
7
Excellent brief column. One would now hope that the EU, strengthened by these French election results, will be able to respond meaningfully to Russia's cyberattacks. It is time for the world to consider harsher economic sanctions against Putin and his kleptocrats. He should finally receive his comeuppance and have the tiny Russian economy shrink even further.
5
Come on. The French media all but openly campaigned for Macron. The American news media has numerous deep flaws, but pointing to the French as the example to follow is not the right answer.
3
Had US media done its job, it would have reported that Clinton had flaws but Trump was without a single virtue, since that's the truth. Instead, it magnified her flaws and invented virtues, trying to paint them as equal.
Had they reported facts, you'd accuse them of campaigning for Clinton. By pushing a false equivalence, they actually campaigned for Trump.
Had they reported facts, you'd accuse them of campaigning for Clinton. By pushing a false equivalence, they actually campaigned for Trump.
1
As the US media should have done for Clinton when her opponent was such an obvious fraud, liar, incompetent, and bigot.
1
Dear Eric,
I am not sure what you read during the election, but this paper ran at least three stories a day telling its readers that Donald Trump was probably the anti-Christ. The coverage was overwhelmingly unfavorable for him in these pages. I voted for Hillary, but I am not blaming the NYT for somehow soft-peddling Donald Trump. They did no such thing.
I am not sure what you read during the election, but this paper ran at least three stories a day telling its readers that Donald Trump was probably the anti-Christ. The coverage was overwhelmingly unfavorable for him in these pages. I voted for Hillary, but I am not blaming the NYT for somehow soft-peddling Donald Trump. They did no such thing.
1
An important word from Mr. Leonhardt. I hope we learn. News organizations would need to agree amongst themselves not to competitively rush to get the dirt out first -- and it's hard to imagine that working without requisite laws in place.
There are other good things to learn here from the French system, the Belgian system, and other European approaches to national elections.
Some of them use government money to fund candidates' advertisements (so that everyone has equal airtime on TV and radio). Additionally, they limit that advertising to several days or weeks prior to elections. So the candidates tend to use that small amount of airtime (microscopic amount, relative to ours) to billboard substantive issues in a concise, focused way that enables intelligent engagement. Imagine that: real content! That saves the whole nation from
1) the endless, years-long campaigning drama we have;
2) much of the negative, character-assassinating attacks on rival candidates;
3) restricting the political sphere only to the incredibly wealthy.
Unfortunately, we don't often bother to learn how other nations do certain things better than we do, so we are stuck trying to re-invent the wheel.
There are other good things to learn here from the French system, the Belgian system, and other European approaches to national elections.
Some of them use government money to fund candidates' advertisements (so that everyone has equal airtime on TV and radio). Additionally, they limit that advertising to several days or weeks prior to elections. So the candidates tend to use that small amount of airtime (microscopic amount, relative to ours) to billboard substantive issues in a concise, focused way that enables intelligent engagement. Imagine that: real content! That saves the whole nation from
1) the endless, years-long campaigning drama we have;
2) much of the negative, character-assassinating attacks on rival candidates;
3) restricting the political sphere only to the incredibly wealthy.
Unfortunately, we don't often bother to learn how other nations do certain things better than we do, so we are stuck trying to re-invent the wheel.
5
I found and interesting counterpoint down the list on the Opinion page. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/opinion/the-altered-state-of-france.h...
Way down.
After reading David Leonhardt's piece, I wish I had read this one first. How accurate is it? Based on my experience to date, the idea that their are Oligarch's defining the outcome of elections with relative ease, makes more sense based on this writer's assertions. That our press in the U.S. is driven by ratings and profit is blatantly obvious, especially television. "Objectivity" and "fairness" in reporting is malleable and easily positioned in ways that appear to hold true as the standard. The outcome though, as intended, is a manipulation of the consumer of this information who internalize the information in favor of those ideas or candidates chosen by, in the current world, the Oligarchy in charge. Currently it is the bankers. As noted in the story referenced earlier it is was other groups in the past. I have been thrown way past cynicism by current events and can only conclude that the underlying mechanism of control of the people is being laid bare and made obvious to us all. Hard pill to swallow, but I can no longer fool myself to believe anything different. 45 is right and he is whining so badly because he can't do anything about it. Tough spot for a narcissist, let alone the rest of us.
Way down.
After reading David Leonhardt's piece, I wish I had read this one first. How accurate is it? Based on my experience to date, the idea that their are Oligarch's defining the outcome of elections with relative ease, makes more sense based on this writer's assertions. That our press in the U.S. is driven by ratings and profit is blatantly obvious, especially television. "Objectivity" and "fairness" in reporting is malleable and easily positioned in ways that appear to hold true as the standard. The outcome though, as intended, is a manipulation of the consumer of this information who internalize the information in favor of those ideas or candidates chosen by, in the current world, the Oligarchy in charge. Currently it is the bankers. As noted in the story referenced earlier it is was other groups in the past. I have been thrown way past cynicism by current events and can only conclude that the underlying mechanism of control of the people is being laid bare and made obvious to us all. Hard pill to swallow, but I can no longer fool myself to believe anything different. 45 is right and he is whining so badly because he can't do anything about it. Tough spot for a narcissist, let alone the rest of us.
1
I hear you loud and clear but I see it from a different perspective. Americans are not French.
In France, things like the funeral of Francois Mitterand happen. With the widow, the mistress and her daughter all being sad around the coffin. I do not have to point all the cases that affairs ended or almost ended political careers in this country.
Full disclosure: I love France, visit it and practice my rusty French. But there are also American lessons for the French media and, I fully expect that the American media keeps being as inquisitive in its research and exposure of our political fauna.
In France, things like the funeral of Francois Mitterand happen. With the widow, the mistress and her daughter all being sad around the coffin. I do not have to point all the cases that affairs ended or almost ended political careers in this country.
Full disclosure: I love France, visit it and practice my rusty French. But there are also American lessons for the French media and, I fully expect that the American media keeps being as inquisitive in its research and exposure of our political fauna.
1
If the American citizenry was more skilled at critical thinking, and a healthy dose of skepticism, the email issue would have had little effect on the vote. Without these skills and with media outlets like Fox promoting nutcases like Trump, I see only a bad end to America's Democratic experiment. Oh, and that's not counting the evangelical bent of the USA, which is at its core unskeptical and lacks any skills at critical thinking, by nature. With Trump's selection of cabinet officials (some exceptions like Mattis and maybe McMaster) and his direction to take out sound scientific and educational thinking in all departments, it's hard to see how the chances of improving the critical skills will not wither further, causing a death spiral for good government.
3
Good call, but I'd argue that the media's biggest mistake was its smug, irresponsible over-reporting of predictions that Clinton had the election (quite possibly) won. Creating a furor of reactionary turnout from backlash-voting unscholarly simplists in love with gunslinging Trump, while making many milder Clinton supporters secure enough so that they wouldn't bother going to the polls.
5
Russian interference in favor of Le Pen was widely known and published. Wikileaks was recognized by the French media as a tool that Putin was using to destroy democracy. The Surete, unlike the FBI, came out in favor of democracy rather than selectively releasing information that harmed one candidate and helped the other.
Had Le Pen won, the riots in Paris would have shocked Trump's America. The millions of Americans protesting the subordination and denigration of women, racism, Islamophobia, and science denial underlined the warning that the election of Trump gave to all democracies. The French have an easier method of ending an administration. Ours is quite convoluted.
Had Le Pen won, the riots in Paris would have shocked Trump's America. The millions of Americans protesting the subordination and denigration of women, racism, Islamophobia, and science denial underlined the warning that the election of Trump gave to all democracies. The French have an easier method of ending an administration. Ours is quite convoluted.
2
"we shall reap what we sow" From birth we are taught that life is a football game...a winner and a loser...a zero sum game. Our culture is about the accumulation of capital. We have sold that culture to the world in one degree or another. Journalist are just pawns in the greater culture. We have been trained to be warriors and capitalist. All of us see a little Trump in ourselves. That is why we react in such an outrageous fashion. We reap what we have sown...and many of us don't like what we have become.
3
Wow never looked at it like that. You certainly have hit a nerve. Thxs.
The media reminds me of little Billie who wants to get home from school before sister Susie to be able to be the first to tell mom that someone (not sure who) might have dropped something (don't know what though), into the pool.
1
France does a lot of things better than we do, and it's obvious to anyone who's read a French newspaper that reporting the news is one of them.
But media is market-driven, and our media don't look for "news", they look for "stories" or "memes". Trump was so outrageous so often about so many things that the media made the mistake of thinking there was no "there" there and instead savaged Clinton. Of course the specifically right-wing media infrastructure's mission was to savage Clinton, and the legions of brain-dead zombies who get their news from Fox and Rush wouldn't have it any other way.
News needs to be about "news". If it isn't news, then it should be left alone. The real story now isn't about Clinton, but about the Russian influence on our election.
But media is market-driven, and our media don't look for "news", they look for "stories" or "memes". Trump was so outrageous so often about so many things that the media made the mistake of thinking there was no "there" there and instead savaged Clinton. Of course the specifically right-wing media infrastructure's mission was to savage Clinton, and the legions of brain-dead zombies who get their news from Fox and Rush wouldn't have it any other way.
News needs to be about "news". If it isn't news, then it should be left alone. The real story now isn't about Clinton, but about the Russian influence on our election.
4
The content of the DNC emails made them controversial. The collusion of Wassermann-Schultz and the HRC campaign to undermine Bernie Sanders and rig the election are the problem. Also the condescending attitudes revealed in the emails toward voters and attempting to use Sander's religion against him struck voters as hypocrisy. And one commenter wonder why only the DNC was hacked. Maybe Mr. Podesta should have used another password other than password. Maybe that is how Carter Page aided the Russians, he gave them that tip, psst, Podesta password is password! It is all clear to me now.
2
Nothing that went on in the DNC was overtly unusual, EVERY CAMPAIGN that's ever been run has used sly trickery, backstabbing, etc. Enough with the Wasserman/Podesta noise which cannot possibly compare to all the crooks running Trump's campaign. Half of Trump's people are now on the verge of being thrown into a jail cell, what the DNC did doesn't even warrant a slap on the wrist.
Dear Keely,
If, "Nothing that went on in the DNC was overtly unusual", then why was it so terrible that it was released for the general public to see. The fact is it was not unusual, as you say, but it still was a nasty bit of business just as the Access Hollywood story was a nasty bit of business and was exposed just as it should have been.
If, "Nothing that went on in the DNC was overtly unusual", then why was it so terrible that it was released for the general public to see. The fact is it was not unusual, as you say, but it still was a nasty bit of business just as the Access Hollywood story was a nasty bit of business and was exposed just as it should have been.
1
@ gpickard: there is NO moral equivalency between what Wasserman and Podesta did -or did not- do to what Trump said on those AH tapes. No comparison.
This year's exercise in media cluelessness is the 24/7 obsession with everything Trump. Every article is about Trump, no matter how non-newsworthy. If he sneezes, that develops into a breathless headline and column. You are, yet again, playing into his hands. As he well knows, all publicity is good publicity.
3
I am French born, naturalized American citizen, and can honestly say that what stands out in this story, is the fact that the French have conscientious and smart laws, that do not allow for a Hollywood/ reality type circus to develop, and then become almost like a cancer.
David Leonhardt does make a good point, and perhaps all of the journalists should have conversations regarding their future strategies as to how to provide their news to the public, and not create a circus type atmosphere when breaking news/and/or other news that is deemed important is reported.
In all fairness, the press and media are extremely important especially at this junction, as long as the info is truthful, factual, and not created into a drama like episode or episodes.
David Leonhardt does make a good point, and perhaps all of the journalists should have conversations regarding their future strategies as to how to provide their news to the public, and not create a circus type atmosphere when breaking news/and/or other news that is deemed important is reported.
In all fairness, the press and media are extremely important especially at this junction, as long as the info is truthful, factual, and not created into a drama like episode or episodes.
2
There is a false equivalency regarding the networks. France went out of her way to express how they proudly had no Fox news. Which is simply propaganda for right wing interests. Sadly, we do. If there were no Fox, this nation would be much better off
3
We can begin by refusing to call it Fox News. The use of the word, "news" serves to legitimize the activity. Best it we refer to it as Fox Propaganda.
It remains to be seen what would have happened if it had been Marine LePen that was hacked.
American journalism has just been terrible in recent years.
Journalists in the US are celebrities now– with the power, pay-packets and personality cults to match. They are 'embedded', hobnob with, and go to the same cutesy dinner parties as the people they are supposed to report on.
America also has no public broadcaster comparable in size or quality to the BBC or German broadcasters ZDF/ARD and Americans rely more on corporate TV for news whereas Europeans on papers that depend more on subscriptions than advertising for their revenue base.
As for Mrs.Clinton, she has only herself to blame for the coverage she received.
American journalism has just been terrible in recent years.
Journalists in the US are celebrities now– with the power, pay-packets and personality cults to match. They are 'embedded', hobnob with, and go to the same cutesy dinner parties as the people they are supposed to report on.
America also has no public broadcaster comparable in size or quality to the BBC or German broadcasters ZDF/ARD and Americans rely more on corporate TV for news whereas Europeans on papers that depend more on subscriptions than advertising for their revenue base.
As for Mrs.Clinton, she has only herself to blame for the coverage she received.
2
I do not know how other countries' media outlets are operated or whether they have profit as one of their primary motives. In the USA, however, our media outlets are all about profit. One can just sense the giddiness and excited salivation when some new something comes from the most-unpresidential president's Twitter account. More views means more money in the coffers. Truth and true 'balanced' reporting seems to have been demoted to second-chair.
Until the executives of vaunted organizations such as The New York Times Company and others start to realize that we, the readers, really do want balance and insightful reporting on critically important issues, we will simply put the media outlets into neat little boxes. If we want right wing, we will watch the supermodel news readers on Fox News. If we want left wing, we will read The New York Times.
And we will be worse off for it.
Until the executives of vaunted organizations such as The New York Times Company and others start to realize that we, the readers, really do want balance and insightful reporting on critically important issues, we will simply put the media outlets into neat little boxes. If we want right wing, we will watch the supermodel news readers on Fox News. If we want left wing, we will read The New York Times.
And we will be worse off for it.
4
If I want left-wing I will NOT go to The New York Times (I have other publications I read for that, and, as a true left-winger, I can tell the difference). To be an informed and engaged citizen, I want intelligent reporting, and commentary from thoughtful and articulate thinkers of various political positions. And a good puzzle. And THAT's why I read the New York Times.
"They [Hillary's emails] contained no evidence of lawbreaking, major hypocrisy or tawdry scandal. Even the worst revelation — a Democratic official and CNN contributor fed a town hall question to the campaign in advance — qualified as small beer. "
I submit that saying the foregoing is the moral equivalent of White House counsel McGann asking acting AG, Sally Yates , "Why is Justice so interested in one White House staffer lying to another?"
In this reader's opinion, Mr. Leonhardt's credibility has been diminished to the vanishing point. Small beer indeed!
I submit that saying the foregoing is the moral equivalent of White House counsel McGann asking acting AG, Sally Yates , "Why is Justice so interested in one White House staffer lying to another?"
In this reader's opinion, Mr. Leonhardt's credibility has been diminished to the vanishing point. Small beer indeed!
4
is it "the media", or is it the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy? The email server, the hacked emails of the DNC, Podesta etc were all too minor and boring to merit much coverage. The endless Benghazi nonsense was also a complete fabrication, and the blame for inadequate security for our Libyan ambassador actually lay with a republican Congress. But Fox News has been such a money-maker the formerly unbiased networks now look to clone it's ratings success, with disastrous results for the truth and simple fairness. As the Macedonian fake news purveyors quickly discovered, if you want clicks, throw red meat to the unwashed right, which is too gullible to make the distinction between news and nonsense. So good to know Rupert Murdoch , Drudge, and breitbart don't get much traction in the "civilized " world...
1
While the TV news was worse, it was legitimized by the newspaper of record's continued focus on and tone about the emails and the email server. What the Times focuses 10% on, the networks focus on 50%; what the Times focuses 1% on, the networks totally ignore.
1
I was horrified at the way our press handled Clinton email problem as if it were somehow equal to all the offences of Trump. How does minor misdemeanor balance impeachable crimes?
1
In our FREE AND OPEN society with a FREE press, we get lost in the mire of commercial and political influence that confronts us on an almost hourly basis. One man's FOX news or MSNBC is another's PBS. One's NYT or NY Post is another's NPR. More often the freedom to be informed is confused by the choices of how and what news is presented.
So we use our freedom to revert to what we want to hear rather than what we should hear. But who decides what we should hear and when we should hear it? Who presents what is true? What is an "alternate fact"? Or what is an outright lie? Which media outlet bears the responsibility to present honest and truthful news and create thoughtful commentary?
Moreover, which source has the responsibility (or the RIGHT) to criticize other sources for their choices of topics or their methods of influence?
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
So we use our freedom to revert to what we want to hear rather than what we should hear. But who decides what we should hear and when we should hear it? Who presents what is true? What is an "alternate fact"? Or what is an outright lie? Which media outlet bears the responsibility to present honest and truthful news and create thoughtful commentary?
Moreover, which source has the responsibility (or the RIGHT) to criticize other sources for their choices of topics or their methods of influence?
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
1
The reason Hillary's emails were of such interest to the American people were that for 30 years, she's been an opaque cipher for hidden power. She has convinced herself, for whatever reason, that a wooden, emotionless demeanor and a fake smile will bring her better results than letting any of the voters find out who she really is or what she really wants. America's journalists, print, radio and TV get no props for duping themselves, then admitting it after the fact. When David Fahrenthold gets a Pulitzer for for the most ordinary kind of investigative reporting ethic; actually staying with a story long enough to do his homework on it, the rest of us are left to wonder why the intersection of a 24 hour news cycle and mindless reporters whose only care is to be first with the story, should still be called journalism.
2
"It was a manipulation attempt — people trying to manipulate our voting process"
The French media choose country over ratings.
The French media choose country over ratings.
1
"Last year, Russian agents stole thousands of emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and published them via WikiLeaks."
You're entitled to your opinion, not your own facts.
There is still zero evidence that Russia gave those emails to WikiLeaks.
There is, on the other hand, considerable evidence that WikiLeaks' source was a leak, not a hack. Craig Murray, the courageous former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, says a disgruntled DNC staffer handed them to him in DC, and that Murray gave them to WikiLeaks: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source...
Not to mention, no one disputes the accuracy of the leaks. Hillary and the DNC cheated and conspired against Senator Sanders, and those emails prove it. I, for one, am glad that we learned the truth about Secretary Clinton.
You're entitled to your opinion, not your own facts.
There is still zero evidence that Russia gave those emails to WikiLeaks.
There is, on the other hand, considerable evidence that WikiLeaks' source was a leak, not a hack. Craig Murray, the courageous former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, says a disgruntled DNC staffer handed them to him in DC, and that Murray gave them to WikiLeaks: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source...
Not to mention, no one disputes the accuracy of the leaks. Hillary and the DNC cheated and conspired against Senator Sanders, and those emails prove it. I, for one, am glad that we learned the truth about Secretary Clinton.
2
I think it's simple - the French learned a lesson from watching us.
1
The whole world heard about Hillary's private server (literally even people in most other countries).
But almost nobody knows about the George W. Bush White House private e-mail server.
Why is that.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-mil...
And while there were 33,000 missing Hillary e-mails, there were 22 million missing W. Bush missing e-mails at a time we were being told we needed to invade Iraq and the White House was trying push false voter fraud cases.
Republicans are much better than Democrats at PR tactics.
But almost nobody knows about the George W. Bush White House private e-mail server.
Why is that.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-mil...
And while there were 33,000 missing Hillary e-mails, there were 22 million missing W. Bush missing e-mails at a time we were being told we needed to invade Iraq and the White House was trying push false voter fraud cases.
Republicans are much better than Democrats at PR tactics.
1
And you still didn't get the story correct. Many of the emails were classified after the fact. They were not properly marked. Many other Secretary of States had private email servers, but somehow only Hillary's was scandalous. No context, no history, no parity and it continues to this day. The lack of in depth reporting on the numerous ethical and conflicts of interest of the Trump administration while the NYT condemned the possibility of the appearance of conflict with the Clinton Foundation is another.
3
Leonhardt praises the French media for "evaluating" the leaked emails, but failed to read the story he linked to, which clearly said that anybody who publishes those email could face criminal charges. From the article Leonhardt himself linked to:
"France sought to keep a computer hack of frontrunner Emmanuel Macron's campaign emails from influencing the outcome of the presidential election, with the electoral commission warning on Saturday that it may be a criminal offense to republish the data."
I hope Leonhardt is not advocating for criminal prosecution of reporters who publish leaked documents.
"France sought to keep a computer hack of frontrunner Emmanuel Macron's campaign emails from influencing the outcome of the presidential election, with the electoral commission warning on Saturday that it may be a criminal offense to republish the data."
I hope Leonhardt is not advocating for criminal prosecution of reporters who publish leaked documents.
1
France, unlike the U.S., does not drag out its election season forever. Moreover, they have a total news blackout 24 hours before voting starts and the hacked emails appeared just before the blackout. Moreover, Emmanuel Macron was a total political newcomer without the immense "baggage" of Hillary Clinton. And, Mr. Macron did not hold a government position with emails containing sensitive materials. And finally, Mr. Macron had a clear message whereas Sec. Clinton had none other than how "unqualified" Donald Trump was. With such a vacuum, it's not surprising that the Clinton emails became central to her campaign. The real "French lesson," as it was here, was that voters wanted a new, fresh face with ideas not just slogans that make them "stronger together." That Democratic candidate was Bernie Sanders. But unlike France where it's easy to form a new party as Mr. Macron did, Sen. Sanders had to fight his way through a hostile and "rigged" for Sec. Clinton (as the Russian hacks revealed) Democratic Party. So, the new, fresh face, like Mr. Macron, who overturned the Republican establishment was the victor.
44
Paul Wortman said: "And finally, Mr. Macron had a clear message whereas Sec. Clinton had none other than how "unqualified" Donald Trump was."
Secretary Clinton had a pretty clear message to me that had nothing to do with Donald Trump, but you had to be willing to filter through the media's Benghazi/Email/Untrustworthy/Pantsuits noise to hear the message.
The reporting on Clinton's emails -- including by the NY Times -- was so shoddy, I decided to assemble the information and put together a timeline MYSELF to figure out where the alleged issues were. It was relatively easy for me, but I'm a lawyer and know how to find the applicable statutes, etc. Don't even get me started on the media's lazy conflating of Clinton's emails and her use of a private server with the hacking of Podesta's and the DNC's emails.
I don't see how Democracy survives if the press fails to do its job, and lay people have to research topics themselves to get true, correct and complete information on a topic.
Secretary Clinton had a pretty clear message to me that had nothing to do with Donald Trump, but you had to be willing to filter through the media's Benghazi/Email/Untrustworthy/Pantsuits noise to hear the message.
The reporting on Clinton's emails -- including by the NY Times -- was so shoddy, I decided to assemble the information and put together a timeline MYSELF to figure out where the alleged issues were. It was relatively easy for me, but I'm a lawyer and know how to find the applicable statutes, etc. Don't even get me started on the media's lazy conflating of Clinton's emails and her use of a private server with the hacking of Podesta's and the DNC's emails.
I don't see how Democracy survives if the press fails to do its job, and lay people have to research topics themselves to get true, correct and complete information on a topic.
4
Paul ~
If Mr. Sanders worked for 30 plus years 'within' and 'for' the Democratic Party, as Mrs Clinton steadfastly did, he would have 'earned' equal treatment within the Party structure. To argue that the 'Independent' was cheated out of the nomination by the Democratic Party reveals a disturbing political naiveté that runs throughout the arguments of Sanders supporters to this day. That naiveté played a significant role in bringing about the disastrous predicament we now face with Mr. Trump in office. An historic 90% of Sanders platform
was adopted…and yet.. that wasn't good enough. So you'll squandered the opportunity of our lifetime because you couldn't settle for anything short of perfect. By the way, I made a donation to the Sander's campaign because I agreed with a good deal of his platform but believed Mrs. Clinton had the chops and experience to get it enacted. From what I hear lately it sounds as if once again your camp plans on bringing a circular firing squad to the 2020 election. We're in deep deep trouble if you'll refuse to become more politically savvy going forward.
If Mr. Sanders worked for 30 plus years 'within' and 'for' the Democratic Party, as Mrs Clinton steadfastly did, he would have 'earned' equal treatment within the Party structure. To argue that the 'Independent' was cheated out of the nomination by the Democratic Party reveals a disturbing political naiveté that runs throughout the arguments of Sanders supporters to this day. That naiveté played a significant role in bringing about the disastrous predicament we now face with Mr. Trump in office. An historic 90% of Sanders platform
was adopted…and yet.. that wasn't good enough. So you'll squandered the opportunity of our lifetime because you couldn't settle for anything short of perfect. By the way, I made a donation to the Sander's campaign because I agreed with a good deal of his platform but believed Mrs. Clinton had the chops and experience to get it enacted. From what I hear lately it sounds as if once again your camp plans on bringing a circular firing squad to the 2020 election. We're in deep deep trouble if you'll refuse to become more politically savvy going forward.
3
Wonder what the media's tone would be right now had:
Chelsea secured lucrative trademarks from the Chinese government after dining with the president.
Hired a national security advisor despite warning flags that he had been paid thousands by the Russian government and failed to disclose he was working as a foreign agent.
Benefited from an assortment of personal financial interests after being elected.
Spent millions more in taxpayer-funded security than her predecessor because she craved weekend relaxation outside of the White House.
Turned a blind eye to members of her son-in-law's family invoking the Clinton brand in pitching American visas to wealthy Chinese.
Fired the White House chief usher for unexplained reasons. (Remember the the Travel Office?)
We could go on.
If Democrats could be bothered to muster the level of outrage that Republicans effortlessly manufacture over triviality when they are out of the White House, they'd be in better shape right now. So would the country.
Chelsea secured lucrative trademarks from the Chinese government after dining with the president.
Hired a national security advisor despite warning flags that he had been paid thousands by the Russian government and failed to disclose he was working as a foreign agent.
Benefited from an assortment of personal financial interests after being elected.
Spent millions more in taxpayer-funded security than her predecessor because she craved weekend relaxation outside of the White House.
Turned a blind eye to members of her son-in-law's family invoking the Clinton brand in pitching American visas to wealthy Chinese.
Fired the White House chief usher for unexplained reasons. (Remember the the Travel Office?)
We could go on.
If Democrats could be bothered to muster the level of outrage that Republicans effortlessly manufacture over triviality when they are out of the White House, they'd be in better shape right now. So would the country.
176
Muster the level of outrage? Are you blind to the town halls and organizing going on everywhere? The truth is that the Republicans won every branch and they don't care. Thanks to gerrymandering, all the outrage the pink hats and pre-existing warriors can muster will likely not be enough. A GOP vote in Michigan is worth 2-2.5 times my Dem vote. Where is your level of outrage over that?
Chelsea was not running for President.
We're living in a different world today. I was born in 1938. Back then, we basically had two media sources: The Press & Newsreels in the movies. At that time, both were considered honest and above reproach. If some newspaper printed something that wasn't true or at least really checked out in advance, the person writing the article would usually be fired on the spot. When TV news first arrived, most of the commentators were like Walter Cronkite; considered honest and trustworthy.
Fast forward to the Internet. Now, anyone with a smart phone, Ipad or computer is editor and chief. I stopped reading the newspapers about 20 years ago because I figured that I could get all the news that I needed from TV so why should I read when I could just watch it in color? I'm now back with The New York Times for many reasons, but mostly I do feel that the news that they're reporting is being overseen by an editor who takes their jobs seriously.
The only way to keep someone like Donald Trump in line is to NOT let him get away with continuous lies about almost everything. Trust has to be earned but for some reason, Trump supporters give him a pass on his lies claiming the "other side" is just Fake News. The only way this is ever going to stop is both the Print and TV News will have to show that Truth really matters. The question is will they have the courage to put Truth ahead of Profit?
Fast forward to the Internet. Now, anyone with a smart phone, Ipad or computer is editor and chief. I stopped reading the newspapers about 20 years ago because I figured that I could get all the news that I needed from TV so why should I read when I could just watch it in color? I'm now back with The New York Times for many reasons, but mostly I do feel that the news that they're reporting is being overseen by an editor who takes their jobs seriously.
The only way to keep someone like Donald Trump in line is to NOT let him get away with continuous lies about almost everything. Trust has to be earned but for some reason, Trump supporters give him a pass on his lies claiming the "other side" is just Fake News. The only way this is ever going to stop is both the Print and TV News will have to show that Truth really matters. The question is will they have the courage to put Truth ahead of Profit?
125
@Eric Kosh: Are you including the Hillary campaign too? Two parties, two sets of lies. The best liar won. I'm happy!
To date that has to be a resounding no to your question. True their are some organizations that at least make an effort but most worship at the alter of greed. Faux News is the poster child of the sellouts with right wing radio jumping on board.
1
The wisdom accumulated over 78 years is showing...
1
You're still in denial, I see. The Russian hack story was the biggest press debacle of 2017, not 2016. Neither the Russians nor the press caused Hillary to lose the election, rather she and her incompetent campaign staff lost it. She lost for a reason, and the reason is that she would not have been the kind of president that people wanted. She, her staff and the press have exacerbated poor race relations intentionally in a cynical attempt to win! They deserved to lose.
It is unbelievable that the Russian story is still dominating the news. It wouldn't dominate if it weren't the only story the Democrats want in the news. You're all incompetent and antidemocratic and you're acting out of hatred. Hatred towards somebody like Trump that exudes some objectionable viewpoints is still hatred, and acting in that hatred will cost you even more elections. You're party is a mess of anti-white, anti-nativist hatred.
The Democratic party has become a horrendous monster almost as bad as the party it lost to.
It is unbelievable that the Russian story is still dominating the news. It wouldn't dominate if it weren't the only story the Democrats want in the news. You're all incompetent and antidemocratic and you're acting out of hatred. Hatred towards somebody like Trump that exudes some objectionable viewpoints is still hatred, and acting in that hatred will cost you even more elections. You're party is a mess of anti-white, anti-nativist hatred.
The Democratic party has become a horrendous monster almost as bad as the party it lost to.
22
So Trump “exudes some objectionable viewpoints”—well that’s putting it mildly. He’s enthusiastically endorsed by the KKK. He’s making the United States a laughingstock around the world. Meanwhile, the Republican party is systematically dismantling environmental protections, health care, ethics oversight, and fair voting processes. It’s also gleefully enabling a transparently incompetent and corrupt con man. I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican. But how you can blather on about “anti-white, anti-nativist hatred” while soft-pedaling the obvious filth of the current Presidential administration is beyond belief. The essence of Mr. Leonhardt’s column is correct: in this matter, the French have outclassed us.
2
USA has never elected a woman President and was not about to start now-- the Democrats should have figured out that a woman was riskier and since our elections are near 50-50 the Dems should not have risked a female candidate as much as we would like to see one some day- the price to loose this election was and is and will be too great and not worth to pick a woman even if we would like to have one as many other countries have done.
I agree that Democratic Party can be improved. I disagree with you about nature of the prevailing attitude toward Trump. He is not hated, but disdained and despised. This is normal for a person who “exudes objectionable viewpoints” and definitely wouldn’t
be any different if he wasn’t white. Also “anti-nativist” hatred isn’t relevant for Trump who claims no Native American ancestry.
be any different if he wasn’t white. Also “anti-nativist” hatred isn’t relevant for Trump who claims no Native American ancestry.
1
i appreciate the introspection and admission of error. But it doesn't go far enough.
After listening to the Congressional hearings on Russia's cyberattacks, American journalists can take some small comfort in realizing that they got collectively played by the Russians, masters of propaganda and Psyops. Big League.
The Russians counted on American journalists to report and to amplify Hilary's issues and to mute Trump's. The media became one big Echo Chamber.
And in exploring the DNC emails and Hillary e-mail servers, the news media lost sight of the bigger stories: the horrendously huge conflicts of interest a President Trump would pose, the lack of any depth to his policies, his lack of grasp of the fundamental facts and issues of national security and economics, and his most curious and unexplained embrace of Putin.
The news media embraced and amplified the conventional Hillary narratives: Hillary was not trustworthy because opinion polls showed that many thought she was not trustworthy. The Clinton Foundation was rewarding donors with access to Clinton, (even if true, Trump makes this look like chump change), EMail Servers, etc. And downplayed her policies and platform - to the extent that many thought she wasn't addressing coal miner concerns, rural American concerns, etc. at all.
The news media did a great big collective belly flop.
News media: Learn from this and Do Your Job!
After listening to the Congressional hearings on Russia's cyberattacks, American journalists can take some small comfort in realizing that they got collectively played by the Russians, masters of propaganda and Psyops. Big League.
The Russians counted on American journalists to report and to amplify Hilary's issues and to mute Trump's. The media became one big Echo Chamber.
And in exploring the DNC emails and Hillary e-mail servers, the news media lost sight of the bigger stories: the horrendously huge conflicts of interest a President Trump would pose, the lack of any depth to his policies, his lack of grasp of the fundamental facts and issues of national security and economics, and his most curious and unexplained embrace of Putin.
The news media embraced and amplified the conventional Hillary narratives: Hillary was not trustworthy because opinion polls showed that many thought she was not trustworthy. The Clinton Foundation was rewarding donors with access to Clinton, (even if true, Trump makes this look like chump change), EMail Servers, etc. And downplayed her policies and platform - to the extent that many thought she wasn't addressing coal miner concerns, rural American concerns, etc. at all.
The news media did a great big collective belly flop.
News media: Learn from this and Do Your Job!
7
Perhaps the "French media exercised better, more sober judgment than the American media" because of the lesson THEY learned from our experience. Regardless who delivered the delivered the lesson, it's great that the hacking did not affect the French election. Let's hope other nations learn to stand down and weaken the impact of hacking to skew elections.
22
The crisis in American journalism is much more than the transition from print to an array of digital formats. As this piece points out publishers anxious to keep up with the 24hour news cycle substitute 'He said, she said' as facts worthy of reporting. Knowing this flaw quite well Trump exploited it by having something to say about the emails every day. His rants were treated as news and publishers went for it hook, line and sinker.
The worst offenders were the bobble heads on the cable news networks. I have never seen a group as lazy and unprepared about the issues as that crowd was. But I disagree that there was no news substance to the emails.
First, it's still not clear from the evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC. Also, Wikileaks released the emails, but didn't publish them. That act was squarely in the hands of our own media. And given the nature of the intelligence community's skillful manipulation of our media it's also not clear that the leak was done to "manipulate our election." An equally plausible motive might have been to undermine Trump on his signature foreign affairs platform, which was to achieve a new detente with Russia.
It would be more than ironic that such a move, designed to tilt favor toward Clinton, who the intelligence community supported, wound up having the opposite effect? At the end of the day the fourth estate has not aquited itself very well and sadly shows no sign of changing.
The worst offenders were the bobble heads on the cable news networks. I have never seen a group as lazy and unprepared about the issues as that crowd was. But I disagree that there was no news substance to the emails.
First, it's still not clear from the evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC. Also, Wikileaks released the emails, but didn't publish them. That act was squarely in the hands of our own media. And given the nature of the intelligence community's skillful manipulation of our media it's also not clear that the leak was done to "manipulate our election." An equally plausible motive might have been to undermine Trump on his signature foreign affairs platform, which was to achieve a new detente with Russia.
It would be more than ironic that such a move, designed to tilt favor toward Clinton, who the intelligence community supported, wound up having the opposite effect? At the end of the day the fourth estate has not aquited itself very well and sadly shows no sign of changing.
10
@drspock
New York
Not clear that it was done to manipulate our election? It was as clear as day and the US intelligence agencies have confirmed that was the goal.
WikiLeaks released these emails with the goal of undermining Trump's signature foreign policy goal of détente with Russia? This is plausible when we know the hacking was done by the Russian intelligence services and their proxies? Really?
New York
Not clear that it was done to manipulate our election? It was as clear as day and the US intelligence agencies have confirmed that was the goal.
WikiLeaks released these emails with the goal of undermining Trump's signature foreign policy goal of détente with Russia? This is plausible when we know the hacking was done by the Russian intelligence services and their proxies? Really?
11
I am very glad that Marine Le Pen lost the election. However, I might point out that both the US and the French losing candidates had one thing in common: they are women. Could it be that underlying sexism cost HRC the election, purely and simply? That the harping on the emails, while ridiculous, just reinforced the double standard? The French are, if anything, at least more overtly sexist than most Americans, in my rather longstanding experience. So, while the US lost the opportunity to have and experienced and thoughtful women at the helm, so did France mercifully vote for the more temperate, and in this case, male candidate.
6
Sexism was definitely in play here in the US, but I think that a lot of other factors also came into play, on both sides of the Atlantic.
HRC: violations of norms and laws with the emails -- most of my friends are federal workers, and many of them would be prosecuted for much less. Even as little as forwarding a work email to their own personal home email (!). Plus the sense of entitlement demonstrated by HRC being so lax in that regard. Plus being a representative not of open multiculturalism (though that is there, too), but of oppressive multiculturalism that shoves itself down your throat. Plus lots of other things.
Le Pen: here, too, I just don't think it's intellectually possible to sift out sexism and isolate it as "the" issue. She wanted to disassemble the EU. But the EU, with all of its problems, also provides all kinds of legal oversight and actual help to ordinary people. That's enormous. How could we fail to bring that into the calculation?
HRC: violations of norms and laws with the emails -- most of my friends are federal workers, and many of them would be prosecuted for much less. Even as little as forwarding a work email to their own personal home email (!). Plus the sense of entitlement demonstrated by HRC being so lax in that regard. Plus being a representative not of open multiculturalism (though that is there, too), but of oppressive multiculturalism that shoves itself down your throat. Plus lots of other things.
Le Pen: here, too, I just don't think it's intellectually possible to sift out sexism and isolate it as "the" issue. She wanted to disassemble the EU. But the EU, with all of its problems, also provides all kinds of legal oversight and actual help to ordinary people. That's enormous. How could we fail to bring that into the calculation?
I agree, that there is a very strong possibility that your statement is true. I am French born, living in the states for most of my life, so know and get the fact that the French can be more sexist than the Americans. Bu on the other hand, in the end,the French population seemed to have looked at what is going on here, and in the end decided they did not need a female D.Trump.
1
There are many reasons why Le Pen did not win (outright), and none of them have to do with her being a woman. She correctly tapped into a general sense of revolt towards the establishment and the "elite" in particular. But where she lost he French was (1) Every other party (except for Dupont-Aignan) disavowed her candidacy for the 2nd round (2) Accepting her party's "national preference" policies also meant accepting the unstated but undeniable reality that the FN and Le Pen in power would have done everything in their power to eliminate Arabs from France - a majority of French were not willing to sign up to that. (3) Her policy proposals were only affordable through a devaluation of the Franc after leaving the EU (4) The FN has insufficient political heavyweights to effectively govern the country and last but not least (5) While French are not always tender towards the EU, they are apparently nowhere near ready to leave yet.
1
Mr. Leonhardt wrote: "Imagine for a moment that your inbox, or your boss’s, was released to the world. I’ll guess that it would not be free of embarrassment."
Sorry, Mr. Leonhardt, ours would have been completely free of embarrassment. My management and I practiced the policy of never writing anything that we wouldn't want the world to see. My staff was advised to do the same. This was done simply because people sometimes forward emails with a comment on the bottom, not realizing they contained information that was sensitive or personal. And then there was always the possibility of sending the email to the wrong person or accidentally including people not meant to receive the information.
Sorry, Mr. Leonhardt, ours would have been completely free of embarrassment. My management and I practiced the policy of never writing anything that we wouldn't want the world to see. My staff was advised to do the same. This was done simply because people sometimes forward emails with a comment on the bottom, not realizing they contained information that was sensitive or personal. And then there was always the possibility of sending the email to the wrong person or accidentally including people not meant to receive the information.
13
The media pilloried Clinton over the supposed "email scandal" and her use of a private server, while they under-reported the "lost" Bush emails and the use of private servers under his administration. Television media gave Trump free advertising every day when he would call into the morning shows and was then given a platform. The media, television in particular, was as complicit as the Comey letter, our own Congress who "leaked" that letter, and the Russian hackers working in tandem with Assange at Wikileaks. Under the ridiculous guise of "fair and balanced" the media most often opted to discuss Clinton's email issue and gave Trump's ridiculous criticisms of her and his predecessor more air time than discussing Clinton's policy ideas, of which Trump was utterly devoid. In this age of 24 hour news and a plethora of news outlets, the American media too often chose to focus on what "made" news rather than what constituted actual, factual, investigative reporting. Every outlet became an opinion mill far more interested in playing the headline that would grab attention and discussing it ad nauseum than remaining an institution of integrity by reporting facts and the implications of those facts. The lines blurred and It was a very dark year for American journalism. Look where we are now.
42
The lesson is that we should recognize that the fourth estate needs to be defended against those who would highjack its power for their own political ends . . . just like the other three.
Absolutely true--the media should have ignored the stolen data. But even if journalists had paid no attention, Trump campaigned on the emails for months. Wikileaks bailed him out of the Access Hollywood debacle. We need honorable politicians as well as an honorable press in order to take the sting out of Putin's subversive game.
We also need to retaliate. Of course, Trump, who encouraged Putin's criminality, will not hit back. But at some point, Trump will be out of power, and the USA will need to make Russia pay for these aggressive tactics. Expelling 25 spies is far too small a price.
We also need to retaliate. Of course, Trump, who encouraged Putin's criminality, will not hit back. But at some point, Trump will be out of power, and the USA will need to make Russia pay for these aggressive tactics. Expelling 25 spies is far too small a price.
11
Ever since "Woodstein" vs. Nixon in the 1970s journalists have been trying to get the big one; the scoop that brings someone down. But that kind of story requires more courage than most news organizations are willing to show.
Real "man bites dog" stories are difficult and dangerous -- just ask Russian journalists. Oh wait, you can't. The good ones die young.
Why doesn't someone cover the worldwide political influence of the Saudi Arabian so-called Royal family? Like all the money they've poured into Harvard or the Bush, Carter and Clinton families and the results of that influence?
Why don't they dig deeper into what's wrong with our health care system and why it's broken; why health care costs so much?
Perhaps it's easier and safer to let Julian Assange do their jobs for them.
Real "man bites dog" stories are difficult and dangerous -- just ask Russian journalists. Oh wait, you can't. The good ones die young.
Why doesn't someone cover the worldwide political influence of the Saudi Arabian so-called Royal family? Like all the money they've poured into Harvard or the Bush, Carter and Clinton families and the results of that influence?
Why don't they dig deeper into what's wrong with our health care system and why it's broken; why health care costs so much?
Perhaps it's easier and safer to let Julian Assange do their jobs for them.
13
Sobering thoughts. US Media (left and right) was too interested in ratings and less interested in reality (and I don't mean as in reality show.) The fake part of what Trump calls the fake news is the supposed equivalency in coverage between Trump and Clinton or in general Republicans and Democrats. Sometimes what one side does is so egregious it needs to be covered without looking for another (lesser) scandal on the other side of the aisle.. .Hopefully we are getting beyond that.
3
In an ideal world, FOX, Sinclair and various on line right wing news news sites would prioritize national interest, thoughtful journalism and truth above stoking the emotions of their viewers, and hence their own ratings. It is far from an ideal world. It is a world in which our president denigrates what he calls 'fake news', fires cadres of experts formerly relied on to help shape government policy, and relies instead on ultraconservative dogma and fantasies to supply the 'alternative facts' and policy directives he is using to guide the country. In his in-eloquent vernacular, SAD!
10
It is not necessarily that French media are wiser than their American counterparts. It is that there is a law in France that prohibits them from publishing election related stuff a few days before the election.
Still, the US media have a long way to go to learn that their coverage of Trump, and their non coverage of Sanders, and the other 3 presidential election candidates (can you even name them?) greatly contributed to Trump's victory (which most of them now decry). There were times when NYT had TEN stories on Trump on the same day!
Still, the US media have a long way to go to learn that their coverage of Trump, and their non coverage of Sanders, and the other 3 presidential election candidates (can you even name them?) greatly contributed to Trump's victory (which most of them now decry). There were times when NYT had TEN stories on Trump on the same day!
16
We in the United States have much to learn from our French (and our British) friends about electoral process. The English have a defined limit to their campaigns and we could do well to similarly limit ours. These year and a half-long slogs contribute much more heat than light and wears everybody down to the extent that this year -- to ix a metaphor -- we ended up with the lowest common denominator. The French have laws about last minute electioneering. Cheers to both countries. Let's avail ourselves of their lessons.
15
"These year and a half-long slogs"
Are you sure it wasn't much longer? It seemed so.
Are you sure it wasn't much longer? It seemed so.
1
The French press had an advantage over the American press: Donald J Trump. They saw what happened here a mere 6 months earlier and they realized they might not like to be pilloried for possibly causing or contributing to a repeat of our lurch to the alt-right.
There's a reason "deja vue" is French.
There's a reason "deja vue" is French.
A very good article. There is a middle ground after all in journalism as there is in everything. As a French and American citizen, I watched the American and the French campaigns in both languages. What struck me the most was the lack of restraint from some American media up to the last minute of the November election. The French media is indeed more subdued than its American counterpart but they may have also learned from the American election fiasco. Some say that history repeats itself but for us French, we certainly did not make the same mistake. Macron won and Putin lost the French election. The American media should use better judgment as to which topics are better to cover: the use of a private email server of a competent and well-informed presidential candidate or the corrupt and mean practices of a business man turned
candidate who became an accidental President. Poor America!
candidate who became an accidental President. Poor America!
10
Sorry but you miss the point. The French media did everything they could to get Macron elected, and succeeded albeit with a number of abstentions, blank votes not seen in 50 years . Total registered voters 47M, Macron 20.7M, Le Pen 10M, registered voters who wanted neither 16M, 1/3!
The media were not about to sway voters at the last minute unlike what they did with delectation and malice aforethought with Fillon.
The media were not about to sway voters at the last minute unlike what they did with delectation and malice aforethought with Fillon.
As a liberal Democrat, let me say this: every time we scurry about trying to find reasons why Hillary Clinton lost other than the candidate herself and her entitled, money-grubbing machine, we re-elect Donald Trump.
Too often, the media sensationalizes the news for their own benefit. After all, a dramatic headline can bring in more viewers or sell more newspapers. But the short term gains are harmful to the country by creating excitement about one story while ignoring other, more important stories.
I am a supporter of a free press. It is essential to a strong democracy. But that freedom comes with the responsibility to be fair and prudent. If the press had not made Clinton's emails such a huge part of their coverage of her campaign perhaps we wouldn't be stuck with an unfit and unstable man who is causing so much harm to our country and our democracy.
I am a supporter of a free press. It is essential to a strong democracy. But that freedom comes with the responsibility to be fair and prudent. If the press had not made Clinton's emails such a huge part of their coverage of her campaign perhaps we wouldn't be stuck with an unfit and unstable man who is causing so much harm to our country and our democracy.
6
VIVE LA DIFFERENCE The French are to be congratulated for the rationale handling of the hacked emails of Macron. described as notable for their ordinariness. it seems that the fridge reaction tells us to ignore ordinary communications that have no relevance to the election at all. By contrast Hillary was treated as a criminal. it seems to me that she's still being persecuted for having participated in the Watergate Committee. As a newly minted attorney who worked in secret, she probably participated in drafting the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon so when her husband was elected president the Republicans said we're going to see how you like it when we do to your man what you did to our man. If the French are capable of running a rational election campaign I think that the US should also be able to do the same. But not on Trump's watch.
2
Hillary Clinton's hacked (stolen) emails were overhyped by the journalists and social media covering our presidential election Mrs. Clinton lost the Electoral College vote and Trump, unbelievably, became our 45th President, Fortunately for La Belle France, the hacked emails of Emmanuel Macron didn't make any difference in his victory. The digital world is corrupt; will American journalists learn that their judgment in deciding what is newsworthy or not is the key to fair treatment of candidates running for political office in the US? We already know the French media is fairer than ours.
7
Glad to see a manwith a built-in platform calling this out, even if he fails to recognize it as Classic Sexism ( tenet number 4,051: make a huge, huge negative deal out of something that would barely be noticed, much less harped on, had a man done it. Or in fact did it.)
3
what was key to the media about the emails was that they drove the media company profits through the roof. every batch released was treated like the
un-Holy Grail. it wasn't. it was brazen attempt to swing the election by a foreign power aided by the American media driven by greed.
un-Holy Grail. it wasn't. it was brazen attempt to swing the election by a foreign power aided by the American media driven by greed.
4
It is reading between the lines and sometimes the truth hurts. So is the case when telling a non truth but that's all in how someone interprets what is reported. Take for instance if this was a story about how someone in government wrote in an email to someone that was from a foreign country that their government employee is at risk of let's say a drone strike. Is that truth or non truth and is it legal? If it was a news report then with sources to back it up then it would be published.
If a doctor can give you a prime directive at age 63 to fill out and return and you say that Facebook is like having a living will without explaining why then that doctor may think that the emoji's for example "Like" determines if it is reported on Facebook is in fact that of a death. That happened to me. But what I did not say as my doctor walked out the room is that with Facebook there is now an option that when you pass away you can check yes or no if you want your account to be closed. Who would ever think that we would be living in Julius Caesar's time with the thumbs up and thumbs down in the 21st century after 9/11 and Drones?
If a doctor can give you a prime directive at age 63 to fill out and return and you say that Facebook is like having a living will without explaining why then that doctor may think that the emoji's for example "Like" determines if it is reported on Facebook is in fact that of a death. That happened to me. But what I did not say as my doctor walked out the room is that with Facebook there is now an option that when you pass away you can check yes or no if you want your account to be closed. Who would ever think that we would be living in Julius Caesar's time with the thumbs up and thumbs down in the 21st century after 9/11 and Drones?
This sounds to me like Monday-morning quarterbacking.
The Clinton email hacking scandal did not occur in a vacuum. By the time it happened, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had already had a decades-long history of unsettling countless millions of people with her petrified inability to ever give a straght answer to anything, big or small.
Spinning has been so second-nature to her for so long that many people felt she just could not give a straight answer. It was in this context that the albeit ill-timed hacking had such traction.
Blaming only the media, or Director Comey is naive and partisan.
It is also disingenuous now to fabricate a straight comparison between the fates of Hillary Clinton and Emmanuel Macron in France, as they each faced an email hacking.
Monsieur Macron is 39 years old and has a political record vastly different from that of Mrs. Clinton's.
Not to mention numerous other factors historical and political that render moot this unexamined attempt to draw imaginary "lessons" from history.
oz.
The Clinton email hacking scandal did not occur in a vacuum. By the time it happened, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had already had a decades-long history of unsettling countless millions of people with her petrified inability to ever give a straght answer to anything, big or small.
Spinning has been so second-nature to her for so long that many people felt she just could not give a straight answer. It was in this context that the albeit ill-timed hacking had such traction.
Blaming only the media, or Director Comey is naive and partisan.
It is also disingenuous now to fabricate a straight comparison between the fates of Hillary Clinton and Emmanuel Macron in France, as they each faced an email hacking.
Monsieur Macron is 39 years old and has a political record vastly different from that of Mrs. Clinton's.
Not to mention numerous other factors historical and political that render moot this unexamined attempt to draw imaginary "lessons" from history.
oz.
5
Really? Mundane?
I don't want Trump to be president, but when I heard that the DNC was debating in emails about going after Sanders for his religion (or lack there of) I was livid. Bernie was my candidate, and when it was confirmed (as I previously suspected) that the DNC was anointing a candidate I had no interest in, it did change my view.
Emails from the DNC asking for contributions? Delete!
I don't want Trump to be president, but when I heard that the DNC was debating in emails about going after Sanders for his religion (or lack there of) I was livid. Bernie was my candidate, and when it was confirmed (as I previously suspected) that the DNC was anointing a candidate I had no interest in, it did change my view.
Emails from the DNC asking for contributions? Delete!
6
The media covered the private server as if 1) ONLY Hillary Clinton was "guilty" of such a "gross act" of malfeasance, even though it appeared to be fairly standard practice among politicians of all stripes and ranks, including a previous Republican Secretary of State; 2) the media failed to investigate WHY ONLY the DNC's and Hillary Clinton's emails were hacked and released, while Republican emails were not, and thereby FAILED to investigate the extent and significance of Russian interference with the election process; 3) the media failed to focus on the TRUE scandals and improprieties of the Trump campaign and candidate, such as financial conflicts of interest, calls to hack emails, Russian ties; 4) the media FAILED to discuss the dangers of Trump's agenda and what it would mean for average Americans should all three branches of government fall into GOP hands; and, 5) last but not least, through the primaries and election, the media FAILED to cover Secretary Clinton's plans and campaign stops so that voters would be able to compare Sanders' and Trump's "plans" with hers.
Did ANYONE in the media EVER ask why it was that in debates, Secretary Clinton would be forced to implore voters to go to her website to learn about her plans and policies? The debates were covered as though they were simply another Trump-run reality show. Sadly, the sole survivor is Trump--not Secretary Clinton and surely not the United States.
Did ANYONE in the media EVER ask why it was that in debates, Secretary Clinton would be forced to implore voters to go to her website to learn about her plans and policies? The debates were covered as though they were simply another Trump-run reality show. Sadly, the sole survivor is Trump--not Secretary Clinton and surely not the United States.
20
Media set the standards too low for Tump - cheered whenever he could manage to act like an ordinary person. But media set the standards too high for Hilary - unquestioned calls to lock her up because of ordinary emails. What is really worrysome is that the US media could be manipulated so easily by a foreign government into supporting the candidate this foreign country favored. God help us.
1
Self censorship requires good judgement--something that is in very short supply in our country these days.
Don't rationalize bad behavior by assuming that someone else will spill the bean if you don't.
Two wrongs still don't make a right.
Don't rationalize bad behavior by assuming that someone else will spill the bean if you don't.
Two wrongs still don't make a right.
3
Our 24/7 news cycles must be fed and Trump was constantly supplying new grist for that mill.
Hillary, on the other hand, was not. She was going about the business of being a responsible candidate for President of the United States. So the only thing to keep the "Breaking News" maw filled was ever more "coverage" of the one story.
I wonder how many times the words "e-mails" and "server" appeared in her coverage the months before the election, the repetition alone entering into the collective psyche, a common brainwashing (and advertising) technique, making the story more important than it was.
Hillary, on the other hand, was not. She was going about the business of being a responsible candidate for President of the United States. So the only thing to keep the "Breaking News" maw filled was ever more "coverage" of the one story.
I wonder how many times the words "e-mails" and "server" appeared in her coverage the months before the election, the repetition alone entering into the collective psyche, a common brainwashing (and advertising) technique, making the story more important than it was.
3
The difference is very easy to explain. Journalists are overwhelmingly liberal or left-wing. They did not want Trump to win and they absolutely did not want Le Pen to win. Yet Trump made a great story and the Clinton emails also made great stories, bringing in coveted reader/viewer attention.
So what is a left-wing journalist to do? Last year, they followed the money and sacrificed Clinton - because they were very sure that Trump had no chance to win anyway, so it seemed they could work against their candidate without actually harming their agenda.
That has changed. After Trump won (and Brexit), journalists now take their enemies like Le Pen seriously, and put their own partisan convictions before profits.
So what is a left-wing journalist to do? Last year, they followed the money and sacrificed Clinton - because they were very sure that Trump had no chance to win anyway, so it seemed they could work against their candidate without actually harming their agenda.
That has changed. After Trump won (and Brexit), journalists now take their enemies like Le Pen seriously, and put their own partisan convictions before profits.
1
As Bob Schieffer has noted, it is almost impossible to find a voter who believes that they needed to know more about either of the candidates. This may have been the most informed electorate in the history of the country. The media literally called Donald Trump a liar and did so on the front page or during the lead. Your real complaint is not that the media failed to tell your preferred narrative. Many outlets told that very story, downplaying all of Clinton's sins. Your real complaint is that over 60 million voters did not buy into that narrative. They did not agree that Clinton receiving debate questions in advance was "small beer." They saw Clinton as dishonest (claiming that she set up the server for convenience, that she had permission to do so, and that there was no classified) and as condescending (anyone who doesn't support her is either desperate or deplorable).
3
Circumventing the government record-keeping requirements by setting up a personal email server was a legitimate story and that may have cost Sec. Clinton the election more than the email hacks or the reporting of it.
As the world knows, Clinton was leading in the polls up until FBI's Comey ill-advisedly announced the re-opening of the investigation into the emails, thanks to Anthony Weiner.
If the media is to be faulted for anything, it is over the obsessive coverage of anything and everything that Trump said or tweeted. After all, the media gave Trump a forum to bash Obama with "fake news" about birther stories for years.
Without media's obsession over Trump, he would not have won the primaries, leave alone the general election.
Trump thrives on media attention and, boy, did he thrive!
Of course, it must be pointed out that it was the party of Lincoln that put a lunatic like Trump as *their* candidate for president. Nice going, GOP!
As the world knows, Clinton was leading in the polls up until FBI's Comey ill-advisedly announced the re-opening of the investigation into the emails, thanks to Anthony Weiner.
If the media is to be faulted for anything, it is over the obsessive coverage of anything and everything that Trump said or tweeted. After all, the media gave Trump a forum to bash Obama with "fake news" about birther stories for years.
Without media's obsession over Trump, he would not have won the primaries, leave alone the general election.
Trump thrives on media attention and, boy, did he thrive!
Of course, it must be pointed out that it was the party of Lincoln that put a lunatic like Trump as *their* candidate for president. Nice going, GOP!
2
Well said. Before a hostile foreign government can dupe the voters, it must first get the media to take the bait. A smart fish knows not to strike every shiny lure dangled in front of it lest it end up as dinner.
One reason I loved Samantha Bee's "Not the White House Correspondent's Dinner" was that she spent at least as much time poking the journalists as she did Trump. Spot on with her takes on CNN and MSNBC, spot on with her rebukes of executives chasing after ratings instead of real news stories. Journalists now seem like they want to regain the respect of the public they have lost, but so far it still seems that journalists are more distracted by Trump than seriously covering that administration. Still coming up short with real investigative reporting. For example, is it really important to know that Trump's other daughter is going to attend Georgetown U law school?
4
Maybe the French media just reports the news without resorting to a lot of sensationalism. Anyway, the French aren't saddled with a weird election system that quite often allows the candidate with the fewest popular votes to win the election.
2
Isn't it likely that French journalists practiced more restraint in their reports of a candidate's hacked emails in part because they had witnessed what happened in the United States and DID NOT want to live in a country like that?
2
Now, that's about time to get over mr. Trump's election for the nytimes.
This last attempt to watering down the email issue is laughable at best and worthy of journalistic revisionism at worst.
Yes, mrs. Rodham Clinton used private server for public emails, and she did order to cancel a good number of.
Whether it was boring stuff or not, anyone can answer for himself, so did voters. It's a trust issue.
NO, they weren't some private emails of workers in a private office that should remain private. They were public emails with sensitive informations coming from and to the Secretary of State.
The DNC emails leak, which ms. Leonhardt astutely forgot to mention, were even worse on the trust issue, they demonstrated how deep and intricate was the gaming behind the scene to get mr. Sanders to fall off the track, and to promote mrs. Rodham Clinton (and they did such a good job, indeed).
All that coming from the structure under whose wings were both competing, the Democratic National Committee.
Those revelations were such a non-issue that its chairwoman mrs. Wasserman Schultz gave up her seat because of them.
Of course in the history book of the nytimes such events didn't happened. and that's why i call it journalistic revisionism.
At the end of the day the French voters trusted not the boring but the truthful.
This last attempt to watering down the email issue is laughable at best and worthy of journalistic revisionism at worst.
Yes, mrs. Rodham Clinton used private server for public emails, and she did order to cancel a good number of.
Whether it was boring stuff or not, anyone can answer for himself, so did voters. It's a trust issue.
NO, they weren't some private emails of workers in a private office that should remain private. They were public emails with sensitive informations coming from and to the Secretary of State.
The DNC emails leak, which ms. Leonhardt astutely forgot to mention, were even worse on the trust issue, they demonstrated how deep and intricate was the gaming behind the scene to get mr. Sanders to fall off the track, and to promote mrs. Rodham Clinton (and they did such a good job, indeed).
All that coming from the structure under whose wings were both competing, the Democratic National Committee.
Those revelations were such a non-issue that its chairwoman mrs. Wasserman Schultz gave up her seat because of them.
Of course in the history book of the nytimes such events didn't happened. and that's why i call it journalistic revisionism.
At the end of the day the French voters trusted not the boring but the truthful.
3
Americans can now look across the Atlantic to France as an example of a responsible, effective press; an informed and intelligent citizenry and what appears to be a prudent, responsible government with the welfare of its citizens as its guide. That used to be us. Sad.
When considering media "judgement" in what stories to tell and how often to repeat them and which meaty stories to avoid, it is worthwhile considering who owns the media. The vast bulk of media is owned by huge corporations. Nuf said?
I believe Mr. Leonhardt is missing the point. It is not whether or not the media assesses the importance of a particular incident and publishes or doesn't publish based on the assessed importance. In the US, it is whether the media has its own political agenda and publishes based on whether the publication of a particular incident furthers or does not further that agenda. Our media (particularly, FoxNews) does, and a mountain is made out of a molehill.
3
As I recall, Mrs. Clinton's "representatives", before surrendering her private server to the investigating authorities, purged much of its content. Additionally, Macron was a candidate, Mrs. Clinton a sitting Secretary of State.
1
The most important lesson is: Russia and its President does and can not determine the outcomes of elections held in the western world?
In France, the media were explicitly told by the Ministry of Interior press statement on the most recent hacking & Macron team email leaks, not to disseminate. That was because it is unlawful to disseminate false information, which could amount to criminal charges.
We now know that these leaks were in fact enlaced with falsehoods. So there are 3 major forces at play here: (1) Appropriately strict regulation of the media in conjunction with reporting, especially during election season, (2) Previous exposure to similar incidents in the US & Europe, which ensured France was prepared to act fast & with effectiveness before the media blackout deadline, i.e. within 15 minutes of the release of hacked information, and (3) Good judgement from French journalists & media.
It's a team effort. US & particularly UK laws are lax in that false information posing as 'news' is not properly regulated and those disseminating it are not prosecuted effectively. Now that any 'hack & release' operation can start anywhere in the world and impact another country, appropriate media/online information dissemination regulation should also be covered by international law.
We now know that these leaks were in fact enlaced with falsehoods. So there are 3 major forces at play here: (1) Appropriately strict regulation of the media in conjunction with reporting, especially during election season, (2) Previous exposure to similar incidents in the US & Europe, which ensured France was prepared to act fast & with effectiveness before the media blackout deadline, i.e. within 15 minutes of the release of hacked information, and (3) Good judgement from French journalists & media.
It's a team effort. US & particularly UK laws are lax in that false information posing as 'news' is not properly regulated and those disseminating it are not prosecuted effectively. Now that any 'hack & release' operation can start anywhere in the world and impact another country, appropriate media/online information dissemination regulation should also be covered by international law.
2
The sensationalist press in america gorges itself on inconsequential
items , blows everyone up into a frenzyy and walks away absolving itself of any responsibility of the consequences. The media failed to vet Trump , piled on a flawed candidate Clinton so that 100 days later- we suffer through the disgrace of a trump presidency and the influence of his corrupt family....
items , blows everyone up into a frenzyy and walks away absolving itself of any responsibility of the consequences. The media failed to vet Trump , piled on a flawed candidate Clinton so that 100 days later- we suffer through the disgrace of a trump presidency and the influence of his corrupt family....
1
Thank you for this thoughtful piece, Mr. Leonhardt, I just hope your Editors and owners take it to heart.
Also, thank you for your dogged persistence to ferret out the facts related to Trump's alleged generosity to charity and the sham of it all. It reminded me of the Nixon days and the long slog to the truth.
The American Media fawned on Trump's every hate and lie filled speech and were complicit in pandering in stolen property. Look what happened.
Also, thank you for your dogged persistence to ferret out the facts related to Trump's alleged generosity to charity and the sham of it all. It reminded me of the Nixon days and the long slog to the truth.
The American Media fawned on Trump's every hate and lie filled speech and were complicit in pandering in stolen property. Look what happened.
2
The American media wanted to make their interminable election process into a big top circus and so the American people have been rewarded with a big top circus of a government. Enjoy!
2
As noted in Rachel Donadio's story, France lacks a loud right-wing media that trumpeted the emails and forced them into the mainstream. Better that reporters would have read the emails en masse once they were all released and put them in the right context; but awfully hard to ignore them on a day-to-day basis when it's all one campaign will talk about.
1
It is an ethical eternity from the journalistic glory days of CBS news, and the Washington Post, to the contemporary "breaking news" of CNN, misogynistic purgatory of ideologically polluted Fox News, and MSNBC's stable of self absorbed pundits. The ratings driven cable news channels have led the sordid descent into false equivalency, synthetic controversy, and pseudo gravitas. The initial sycophantic, ratings driven, blanket coverage of Donald Trump, was particularly egregious, and the key to his candidacy. The overall effect has been the devaluing of "factual accuracy", creating the optimum environment for blatant demagoguery, and the mendacious spinning of Sean Spicer.
1
"Lesson" you say? Perhaps it would be important to provide reading "lessons" for the American electorate? Or simply how to turn off the TV?
1
Trump led the media around by the nose and it followed him breathlessly wherever he went like a witless dog. Not just Fox, as you'd expect. All of it, all of the "lame-stream media".
Its over-the-top coverage sucked the oxygen out of the room, denied adequate reporting to Trump's badly splintered Republican competition. But it did more than just tilt the game board in his favor. It amounted to a weekly multi-million dollar contribution to Trump's campaign. That enabled him to first mobilize then solidify a base of "our deplorables" (borrowing one of HRC's more poignant gaffes) whose votes put him into the White House.
Its over-the-top coverage sucked the oxygen out of the room, denied adequate reporting to Trump's badly splintered Republican competition. But it did more than just tilt the game board in his favor. It amounted to a weekly multi-million dollar contribution to Trump's campaign. That enabled him to first mobilize then solidify a base of "our deplorables" (borrowing one of HRC's more poignant gaffes) whose votes put him into the White House.
2
The American press amplified an orchestrated propaganda campaign against Clinton, acting as unwitting pawns or active agents for Republican spin; the French press makes a very nice cup of coffee.
5
You might be a bit off when you say, "The overhyped coverage of the hacked emails was the media’s worst mistake in 2016 — one sure to be repeated if not properly understood. Television was the biggest offender, but print media was hardly blameless. The sensationalism exacerbated a second problem with the coverage: the obsession with Clinton’s private email server."
The truth is the media was obsessed with Trump, they followed him everywhere, they repeated every word he uttered, every head shake, head nod, every hand gesture, everytime his orange hair moved a fraction. In fact he received so much free publicity he did not have to spend any of his campaign money which he redirected towards his own businesses?
The saddest part of it all was that very few in the main stream media carried Bernie's speeches, even after he became really popular and a viable threat to Hillary. NYT refused to acknowledge his existence, when they did, it was to dismiss him like an insect, you should read the archives of Paul Krugman and Charles Blow, occasionally David Brooks, the kind of disrespect they showed to this old man, was worse than what the Republicans showed to Obama in his 8 years. All Bernie's fault was that he dared to give people a vision of the glory that America could become, just equitable, universal health, good education. These analysts and media pundits scoffed off his vision as unicorn, utopian, socialist, populist and feminists screamed misogyny at the top of their lungs.
The truth is the media was obsessed with Trump, they followed him everywhere, they repeated every word he uttered, every head shake, head nod, every hand gesture, everytime his orange hair moved a fraction. In fact he received so much free publicity he did not have to spend any of his campaign money which he redirected towards his own businesses?
The saddest part of it all was that very few in the main stream media carried Bernie's speeches, even after he became really popular and a viable threat to Hillary. NYT refused to acknowledge his existence, when they did, it was to dismiss him like an insect, you should read the archives of Paul Krugman and Charles Blow, occasionally David Brooks, the kind of disrespect they showed to this old man, was worse than what the Republicans showed to Obama in his 8 years. All Bernie's fault was that he dared to give people a vision of the glory that America could become, just equitable, universal health, good education. These analysts and media pundits scoffed off his vision as unicorn, utopian, socialist, populist and feminists screamed misogyny at the top of their lungs.
3
Thank you. Finally a journalist who says it: "a president who 'lies'..."
Let's stop calling Trumps LIES "untruths, falsehoods, etc."
This guy LIES!
Let's stop calling Trumps LIES "untruths, falsehoods, etc."
This guy LIES!
2
"The media cannot always ignore that information, tempting as it may seem. But it also should not pretend that the only two options are neglect and sensationalism. There is a middle ground, one where journalistic judgment should prioritize news over the whiff of news."
no comments just questions
1. Is the French media own by corporations that don't care about journalism or America : Google CNN's Jeff Zucker
2. FOX News, Steve Bannon, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and Roger Stone would have certainly stayed on the sensationalism end of the spectrum and they would have painted anyone else as "crooked media" so how could honest media outlet defended their reputations and report on the emails without worrying about the next shoe (email) to drop?
3. Where was this column during the primaries and general election? Why did it take a French Election or rather French Media to embarrass the US journalist (the people not the corporations who see #1)
no comments just questions
1. Is the French media own by corporations that don't care about journalism or America : Google CNN's Jeff Zucker
2. FOX News, Steve Bannon, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and Roger Stone would have certainly stayed on the sensationalism end of the spectrum and they would have painted anyone else as "crooked media" so how could honest media outlet defended their reputations and report on the emails without worrying about the next shoe (email) to drop?
3. Where was this column during the primaries and general election? Why did it take a French Election or rather French Media to embarrass the US journalist (the people not the corporations who see #1)
2
This is what happens when 'the media' start wearing one team's jersey.
They stop judging stories for their 'news value'.
Or ...
This is what happens when 'the media' start chasing ratings.
'The adults' in the room might think the story really isn't that big a deal ... But then there's those eyeballs they want to attract and, well, with enough breathless adjectives, the story can be turned into one of TOWERING SIGNIFICANCE.
And, besides, there are other media sources--Fox News--that are 'pumping' the story for all it's worth.
Funny how the more the American Media cover something, the less and less people seem to know about it. (LOL)
They stop judging stories for their 'news value'.
Or ...
This is what happens when 'the media' start chasing ratings.
'The adults' in the room might think the story really isn't that big a deal ... But then there's those eyeballs they want to attract and, well, with enough breathless adjectives, the story can be turned into one of TOWERING SIGNIFICANCE.
And, besides, there are other media sources--Fox News--that are 'pumping' the story for all it's worth.
Funny how the more the American Media cover something, the less and less people seem to know about it. (LOL)
1
No one in the US cared about the Clinton "hack" either. That is just an excuse you (the Liberal Media) keep hawking. Clinton lost because she was a poor candidate who ran a poor campaign pandering to her base and alienating and insulting those who might have supporter her. The emails only confirmed what everyone already knew. The primary was in the bag. Who would have guessed?
2
The French media deserve credit for their superior performance, but, as Mr. Leonhardt points out, the two cases are not precisely comparable. The most obvious difference, in my view, stems from the fact that Clinton's e-mails were leaked periodically over a much longer period of time. In France, the entire release occurred two days before the election, giving reporters little time to read and evaluate the material.
That said, many American journalists deserve the criticism heaped on them for their coverage of the election. The narrow focus on Clinton's use of a private e-mail server for government business, combined with the breathless reporting of every "revelation" contained in her campaign e-mails, raised serious questions about the professionalism of some journalists, about their ability to separate the political wheat from the chaff. Confronted with a candidate like Trump, who laced his campaign speeches with blatant lies and impossible promises, the obsession with Clinton's missteps and misdemeanors amounted to journalistic malpractice.
Now, the media confront a president who, even during the campaign, treated their members with contempt and has branded them enemies of the people. Voters, not reporters, bear the main responsibility for this disaster, but the latter's concentration on peripheral issues in their stories still contributed to the outcome.
That said, many American journalists deserve the criticism heaped on them for their coverage of the election. The narrow focus on Clinton's use of a private e-mail server for government business, combined with the breathless reporting of every "revelation" contained in her campaign e-mails, raised serious questions about the professionalism of some journalists, about their ability to separate the political wheat from the chaff. Confronted with a candidate like Trump, who laced his campaign speeches with blatant lies and impossible promises, the obsession with Clinton's missteps and misdemeanors amounted to journalistic malpractice.
Now, the media confront a president who, even during the campaign, treated their members with contempt and has branded them enemies of the people. Voters, not reporters, bear the main responsibility for this disaster, but the latter's concentration on peripheral issues in their stories still contributed to the outcome.
155
A point to remember, Clinton's emails, and the impression that they were able to create, were more than confirmed by the release of the e-mails of the Democratic National Committee, and senior advisor John Podesta.
The package merely demonstrated that Hillary Clinton was very much of the conniving, ethically challenged character that she had been portrayed as having for years.
The package merely demonstrated that Hillary Clinton was very much of the conniving, ethically challenged character that she had been portrayed as having for years.
I agree with this article that the media paid too much attention to the Clinton email messages. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Rather, starting with Hillary's years in Bill's White House, a well-funded hate machine -- yes, the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' - has worked very hard to demonize this intelligent, competent woman. And the media diligently played along, never failing to rise to the bait, whether it was Benghazi or some other manufactured crisis.
355
Remember the derisive laughter at Mrs Clinton all those years ago when she identified the vast right wing conspiracy against her? Too bad the media chose to pile on instead of test her conspiracy theory.
4
The media never failed to rise to the bait. You are so correct. It was pitiful.
3
Of course, the "vast right-wing conspiracy" placed that e-mail server in the basement of her home in Chappaqua.
How they did it without her knowing is still a mystery.
How they did it without her knowing is still a mystery.
Do we really have a news media, or an advertising and entertainment industry pretending to report news.
Big money certainly corrupts our political process, but so does the big media. While allegedly reporting on the campaign, the media gave Mr. Trump a daily front page platform to hammer out his messaging. He couldn't have purchased a better advertising company. He didn't own a news organization, but the media was owned by him. For one small example, endlessly repeating his birther nonsense. "Yup, he said it again. No proof, but he said it, so we have to repeat it on the front page, again, and again, and again."
Fess up, Big Media, you blew our election. You gave us a LCIC, loose cannon in charge. Hope he doesn't sink the ship of state. He has already blown major holes in it.
Big money certainly corrupts our political process, but so does the big media. While allegedly reporting on the campaign, the media gave Mr. Trump a daily front page platform to hammer out his messaging. He couldn't have purchased a better advertising company. He didn't own a news organization, but the media was owned by him. For one small example, endlessly repeating his birther nonsense. "Yup, he said it again. No proof, but he said it, so we have to repeat it on the front page, again, and again, and again."
Fess up, Big Media, you blew our election. You gave us a LCIC, loose cannon in charge. Hope he doesn't sink the ship of state. He has already blown major holes in it.
266
And the same pattern continues - constant importance given to his tweet rants...
The media missed the failure of states' results that did NOT jive with exit polls and examining paper trails. Russia was caught HACKING STATE VOTER ROLLS. And those were just states they were caught in.
The Mi and Fl results never added up. Russia or the GOP or both stole just enough votes in key states to avoid recounts... Green Party tried to look into suspicious results, foiled by GOP, dismissed by media.
Why trust the party that claimed dem ballot stuffing in 2000 tho clearly Gore won thousands more Fla voter "intentions" that went to Buccannan (thank's butterfly ballot).
The hateful/incompetent/lying Trump, a greedy "rich" man (fraudulent "founder" of scam Trump U & a tax-evading Foundation) who is morally and financially bankrupt but for Russian/Foreign banks/dirty money laundering. Who OWNS him? What's in his taxes? THAT is the story media are distracted from exposing. Russians attacked Jeb Bush, Rubio in primary rivals and then Hillary--all set up to look like "sore losers": No, they and WE were robbed. It's an outrage.
Russia cultivated the opportunity when they saw it --a weak man they own --they made sure he won. A bloodless coup. Our hackers are not as adept as theirs (ask Snowden) Failure to find evidence of voter machine tampering not mean it did not exist. Russian "Meddling" is too mild a word ("Pizzagate" fake news amplified by trolls and Breitbart and the FLYNNS?!) it was lying, cheating, stealing. Yet HRC still won more votes.
The Mi and Fl results never added up. Russia or the GOP or both stole just enough votes in key states to avoid recounts... Green Party tried to look into suspicious results, foiled by GOP, dismissed by media.
Why trust the party that claimed dem ballot stuffing in 2000 tho clearly Gore won thousands more Fla voter "intentions" that went to Buccannan (thank's butterfly ballot).
The hateful/incompetent/lying Trump, a greedy "rich" man (fraudulent "founder" of scam Trump U & a tax-evading Foundation) who is morally and financially bankrupt but for Russian/Foreign banks/dirty money laundering. Who OWNS him? What's in his taxes? THAT is the story media are distracted from exposing. Russians attacked Jeb Bush, Rubio in primary rivals and then Hillary--all set up to look like "sore losers": No, they and WE were robbed. It's an outrage.
Russia cultivated the opportunity when they saw it --a weak man they own --they made sure he won. A bloodless coup. Our hackers are not as adept as theirs (ask Snowden) Failure to find evidence of voter machine tampering not mean it did not exist. Russian "Meddling" is too mild a word ("Pizzagate" fake news amplified by trolls and Breitbart and the FLYNNS?!) it was lying, cheating, stealing. Yet HRC still won more votes.
I happened to be able to watch morning network TV news several days this past week. "Hard" stories led off (I suppose we should be grateful!), but each ran less than 30 seconds and were truncated to the point of uselessness (if there was more than one point to be made, it never was). This left several minutes for fashion, cooking and heat-warming pablum.
1
A French Lesson for America's Fake Democracy.
Voting on Sunday instead of a working Tuesday increases voter turnout.
Citizens are automatically registered upon reaching the age of 18; artificial and discriminatory voter registration laws are not a full-time right-wing fascist sport.
Election campaigns take a few months, not a few years.
Unlimited dark, corrupt, moneyed hijacking of elections is prohibited.
Fake News channels either don't really exist; they're not #1 hits
Ignorance is not a badge of honor in France, unlike America
The gerrymander has not destroyed France's representative government
France has no slave-era Electoral College to rig its election in favor of Alabama, Kentucky and the wisdom of religious regressions
Corporations are not people in France
Money is not speech in France
France's government has respect for representative democracy, not contempt for it, as is the case in America, Inc.
Democracy exists in France; fake democracy exists in America.
It also helps that the French are more intelligent than Americans, and have refused to let right-wing Know-Nothing Grand Old Propagandists hijack their democratic republic into a sewer of stupidity, greed and corruption.
America's French-Fried Republic has grown fat, stupid and completely unresponsive to healthy political food.
Voting on Sunday instead of a working Tuesday increases voter turnout.
Citizens are automatically registered upon reaching the age of 18; artificial and discriminatory voter registration laws are not a full-time right-wing fascist sport.
Election campaigns take a few months, not a few years.
Unlimited dark, corrupt, moneyed hijacking of elections is prohibited.
Fake News channels either don't really exist; they're not #1 hits
Ignorance is not a badge of honor in France, unlike America
The gerrymander has not destroyed France's representative government
France has no slave-era Electoral College to rig its election in favor of Alabama, Kentucky and the wisdom of religious regressions
Corporations are not people in France
Money is not speech in France
France's government has respect for representative democracy, not contempt for it, as is the case in America, Inc.
Democracy exists in France; fake democracy exists in America.
It also helps that the French are more intelligent than Americans, and have refused to let right-wing Know-Nothing Grand Old Propagandists hijack their democratic republic into a sewer of stupidity, greed and corruption.
America's French-Fried Republic has grown fat, stupid and completely unresponsive to healthy political food.
362
Not so fast! Do you realize if the French vote had changed by 8%, Le Pin would have been elected. I fear for the French and the world.
Yes, besides the differences in campaign financing---more public funding and limits on private donations to level the playing field for the citizens---what about how the French set up their voting districts?
Any comparison among any other democracies with American's rigged gerrymandering, keeping the Gop in power in the states? And keeping them aligned with the super rich calling the shots in our lawmaking? Could the Times possibley do an article or op ed on this to give us "all the news fit to print without fear or favor?" Per founder Adoph Ochs.
Thus any relation to why even with ACA, millions of citizens here were uninsured? And that the Gop now aims to destroy what ACA did manage to achieve, even while ACA kept the insurance company profits flowing, using our tax dollars? Not exactly France.
Any comparison among any other democracies with American's rigged gerrymandering, keeping the Gop in power in the states? And keeping them aligned with the super rich calling the shots in our lawmaking? Could the Times possibley do an article or op ed on this to give us "all the news fit to print without fear or favor?" Per founder Adoph Ochs.
Thus any relation to why even with ACA, millions of citizens here were uninsured? And that the Gop now aims to destroy what ACA did manage to achieve, even while ACA kept the insurance company profits flowing, using our tax dollars? Not exactly France.
1
Thank you, Socrates you basically said it all. I would add that I believe the US's enablement of organized religion via the provision of tax exempt status results in extremely serious problems here. The focus of organized religion is usually skewed toward male dominance and authoritarianism of its members from early childhood onward. When religion, which provides needed structure, but does it by fear of divine retribution, is enabled in the public sphere there is less and less of an opportunity to counteract these one-sided teachings with secular teachings of honor, fairness, justice, character and personal responsibility in public life for their own sake and for the collective good. It also sets up the situation of religions being pitted one against another, with endless warring between them. It also results in frequent misogyny rather than a tendency towards equality of gender. Finally, it encourages the notion that people cannot be of good character without a religion, which is a fatal disservice to citizens. We should level the playing field by eliminating tax exempt status for organized religion. This is not to say it should be outlawed, just moved to its proper place of exercise in private life. Peace.
2
By the way, the Times in one story regarding the upcoming publication of some e-mails announced in its headline that this new patch was going to be damaging for Clinton, without knowing what was going to be in them. The "scoop" mentality of American journalism is also responsible for this getting ahead of the story and creating unwarranted anticipation.
34
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
The totality of the emails released of ALL the people in HRC’s orbit during the campaign hardly were characterized by “ordinariness”. Podesta’s alone were hilarious. Some of those emails cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her job, and if Bernie had litigious inclinations the DNC could have been embroiled in court antics for years. If nothing else, Putin provided a global audience with immense cheap entertainment. When you consider what Hollywood spends every year to do the same thing less effectively, that ain’t chopped liver.
Clearly, though, Macron is an intelligent man: he’s taken to heart Trump’s injunction against putting down dumb thoughts in emails. That alone bodes well for France for the next five years. Heaven knows what might have been revealed had Le Pen’s emails been hacked as effectively – re-popularization of the salute “sieg heil!”, perhaps?
The “obsession” with HRC’s private email server, though, was legitimate. Apart from its illegal use during her stint as SecState, her reliance on it demonstrated as nothing else did so disturbingly how Nixonesque she was in her paranoia. One began to wonder to what use she might put the IRS, FBI and CIA against “enemies” if she were to assume real power.
Yet it’s true that Trump was created by the American press. And having created Trump, the press now feasts in its efforts to destroy him. Then further feasts by issuing mea culpas.
ALL of it sells newspapers and clicks … doesn’t it?
The totality of the emails released of ALL the people in HRC’s orbit during the campaign hardly were characterized by “ordinariness”. Podesta’s alone were hilarious. Some of those emails cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her job, and if Bernie had litigious inclinations the DNC could have been embroiled in court antics for years. If nothing else, Putin provided a global audience with immense cheap entertainment. When you consider what Hollywood spends every year to do the same thing less effectively, that ain’t chopped liver.
Clearly, though, Macron is an intelligent man: he’s taken to heart Trump’s injunction against putting down dumb thoughts in emails. That alone bodes well for France for the next five years. Heaven knows what might have been revealed had Le Pen’s emails been hacked as effectively – re-popularization of the salute “sieg heil!”, perhaps?
The “obsession” with HRC’s private email server, though, was legitimate. Apart from its illegal use during her stint as SecState, her reliance on it demonstrated as nothing else did so disturbingly how Nixonesque she was in her paranoia. One began to wonder to what use she might put the IRS, FBI and CIA against “enemies” if she were to assume real power.
Yet it’s true that Trump was created by the American press. And having created Trump, the press now feasts in its efforts to destroy him. Then further feasts by issuing mea culpas.
ALL of it sells newspapers and clicks … doesn’t it?
11
Mr. Luettgen,
For once I mostly agree with you in your assessment. Before I read your comment I had the same thought regarding culpability. I assure you I was not copying your comment lead.
For once I mostly agree with you in your assessment. Before I read your comment I had the same thought regarding culpability. I assure you I was not copying your comment lead.
1
So....,"one began to wonder" about Hillary during this illegal release of her emails, huh? But one already should have KNOWN about Trump's nasty character and lack of honor, shouldn't they? There's that horrible false equivalency that I keep hearing over and over, still today. How stupid this has all been and continues to be. But you relish in this Richard.
As far as the press is concerned, I'd rather have them publicly stating "Oops" and going on to try and rectify the issue. As for destroying Trump; that is one of my prime objectives. It is the RIGHT thing to do now.
As far as the press is concerned, I'd rather have them publicly stating "Oops" and going on to try and rectify the issue. As for destroying Trump; that is one of my prime objectives. It is the RIGHT thing to do now.
4
No doubt your criticisms of American journalism of late are much deserved, and thank you for making them. But I am sure you consider your audience when you write your columns, especially its willingness and ability to use critical thinking skills. You could have chosen to write for a super market tabloid, but you chose NYT. Unfortunately, too many Americans today choose the equivalent of tabloids for their "news", or, perhaps more alarming, cannot differentiate a tabloid from legitimate journalism. And too many would-be journalists decide to become little more than tabloids in response. Apparently France does not have that problem, and it's all the better for it.
71
Michael,
The difference between tabloids and news is paper-thin. The media, including the NYT, chased silly, shiny objects during the 2016 campaign. Sanders and Trump polled at the same level. Trump got daily, above the fold, coverage; Sanders got very little coverage. Even when he won a state, it was reported that Clinton lost it. What he got was scorn and no serious consideration of his policy proposals. Trump got the media to report tweets AS news. Sanders got criticism for not going out to have a beer with the boys after work. I suspect he scares them, bigly.
The difference between tabloids and news is paper-thin. The media, including the NYT, chased silly, shiny objects during the 2016 campaign. Sanders and Trump polled at the same level. Trump got daily, above the fold, coverage; Sanders got very little coverage. Even when he won a state, it was reported that Clinton lost it. What he got was scorn and no serious consideration of his policy proposals. Trump got the media to report tweets AS news. Sanders got criticism for not going out to have a beer with the boys after work. I suspect he scares them, bigly.
3
Yes, and the media (and certainly Trump) kept harping on Clinton having a question for that town-hall beforehand. The question asked what she would say to the people of Flint about the lead in the water crisis. The meeting was IN Flint - even Trump could have figured out that that might be one of the questions. The 'leak' was hardly a huge heads-up.
112
Here's are two other lessons:
1. TIME LIMITS: The French election between the two finalist candidates lasted roughly two weeks. It's difficult for the media to wade through a trove of leaked emails and develop a narrative in that telescoped timeline.
2. NEITHER MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATE RECEIVED ENOUGH VOTES TO QUALIFY FOR THE RUN-OFF: It is possible that neither Donald Trump NOR Hilary Clinton would have garnered enough votes to qualify for a run-off had, say, Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders run as the head of the "Christian Conservative" and "Democratic Socialist" parties. Given the public antipathy for both "front runners" in 2016 our country might want to look at changing the format elections over the next few years. A third, fourth, and fifth party might help us get out of our rut... and might get the money out of politics.
1. TIME LIMITS: The French election between the two finalist candidates lasted roughly two weeks. It's difficult for the media to wade through a trove of leaked emails and develop a narrative in that telescoped timeline.
2. NEITHER MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATE RECEIVED ENOUGH VOTES TO QUALIFY FOR THE RUN-OFF: It is possible that neither Donald Trump NOR Hilary Clinton would have garnered enough votes to qualify for a run-off had, say, Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders run as the head of the "Christian Conservative" and "Democratic Socialist" parties. Given the public antipathy for both "front runners" in 2016 our country might want to look at changing the format elections over the next few years. A third, fourth, and fifth party might help us get out of our rut... and might get the money out of politics.
43
Qualify for a run-off? There were 11 candidates for the French presidency. The two top vote-getters, Macron and Le Pen, faced off in the final election. If we had a similar system in America both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency.
Trump and Clinton would have been the two candidates who got the most votes, regardless of whether or not Cruz or Sanders got in as fourth and fifth party representatives. What happened was that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, neither of whom had a prayer of winning, siphoned votes from Hillary Clinton and put Trump in the White House. In 2000 Ralph Nader did the same to Al Gore, bringing us eight years of the incompetent George W.
If we had adopted the French system we wouldn't be worried about the daily insanity out of today's White House, and we wouldn't have lost 4400 troops and three trillion dollars in the Iraq fiasco.
Trump and Clinton would have been the two candidates who got the most votes, regardless of whether or not Cruz or Sanders got in as fourth and fifth party representatives. What happened was that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, neither of whom had a prayer of winning, siphoned votes from Hillary Clinton and put Trump in the White House. In 2000 Ralph Nader did the same to Al Gore, bringing us eight years of the incompetent George W.
If we had adopted the French system we wouldn't be worried about the daily insanity out of today's White House, and we wouldn't have lost 4400 troops and three trillion dollars in the Iraq fiasco.
4
Maine has created a run-off system to prevent the situation you describe, as has a few other states. It makes sense.
1
This needed to be said. Our two party system sucks it's constraints ysbinto selecting a candidate who does not represent our multi dimensional personalities and agendas, our dreams and visions. Hillary for us represented status quo, being complacent about how things were. People like Paul krugman suddenly became incrementalists, proposing incremental changes to existing systems rather than a more populist vision. Policy wonks made up the Democratic Party of NO, we can't do all those things Bernie's followers would like for our country, it's too expensive. So now we have a president who is blatantly taking money from the poor and middle class and handing it over to the rich. Thanks Paul Krugman Nobel economist!!
3
Let us remember three facts. First, a presidential campaign in America means many millions of dollars to news organizations in the form of advertising revenue. Circulation, and for broadcast journalism, the size of viewing audiences matter very much.
Second, news organizations compete, and a scoop has value – particularly for the reporter who gets the story first.
Third, a story with a very simple theme – a private email server – is prized above one with yawn-inducing intricacies like environmental policy or job creation or quantitative easing.
If we, the consumers of news, are stupid at times, the penchant of news gatherers for chasing bright, shiny objects makes us dumber.
Second, news organizations compete, and a scoop has value – particularly for the reporter who gets the story first.
Third, a story with a very simple theme – a private email server – is prized above one with yawn-inducing intricacies like environmental policy or job creation or quantitative easing.
If we, the consumers of news, are stupid at times, the penchant of news gatherers for chasing bright, shiny objects makes us dumber.
126
sdw.....
Yes, the underlying factor----"campaign in America means many millions of dollars to news organizations in the form of advertising revenue"
Americans are swamped with political ads manipulating the voters, using advertising techniques of persuasion, not facts. These ads are the biggest expense of our campaigns, needing billionaire campaign donor check writing, and profitting media companies like a store's christmans season.
That may be why we NEVER get any mention of campaign finance reform in our news media---on TV or in NYT. Despite the fact that many groups in states across the nation are trying to reverse Citizens United. This is ignored by our media---somehow not newsworthy?
Our overly protracted campaigns, about 5 times longer than any other country, aid in the big money exchange and the piling up of profits.
See John Nichols book , Dollarocracy.
Yes, the underlying factor----"campaign in America means many millions of dollars to news organizations in the form of advertising revenue"
Americans are swamped with political ads manipulating the voters, using advertising techniques of persuasion, not facts. These ads are the biggest expense of our campaigns, needing billionaire campaign donor check writing, and profitting media companies like a store's christmans season.
That may be why we NEVER get any mention of campaign finance reform in our news media---on TV or in NYT. Despite the fact that many groups in states across the nation are trying to reverse Citizens United. This is ignored by our media---somehow not newsworthy?
Our overly protracted campaigns, about 5 times longer than any other country, aid in the big money exchange and the piling up of profits.
See John Nichols book , Dollarocracy.
Rupert Murdoch and his family don't operate any press outlets in France, do they David ?
224
p.s. - No way in bloody Hades should Sinclair Broadcasting and Tribune Media be allowed by the FCC to combine, letting 1 company control 200 U.S. TeeVee stations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stations_owned_or_operated_by_Sinc...
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_Broadcasting
Never mind what the NYPost reports djt and Sinclair's owners discussed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stations_owned_or_operated_by_Sinc...
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_Broadcasting
Never mind what the NYPost reports djt and Sinclair's owners discussed.
14
We have a free press and free speech. No one has to read Murdoch. He speaks only to the converted, so your fatalism is misplaced.
2
Hillary Clinton is not a man. In this she so threatened American civilisation that Donald Trump was elected President. Her unforgivable error in being female did indeed ernergize the full ugliness of media sexism during her presidential campaign. Is France any less sexist? Emmanuel Macron is adored by French media His opponent Marine Le Pen was constantly ciritized and I wish to stress rightly so. Yet is there also some sexism in the bashing of her? Have no illusions as for gentlemanly media had her mail been leaked.
61
Agree with you, even without leading a far right political party, it seems impossible for a French female to become president and only once there was a female chief of the executive ("1° ministre") : Edith Cresson (1991-1992). And we know all that the main French media was belonged by billionaires who want more liberalism, more globalization, M. Macron was candidate, now he is their "obligé".
2
Hillary probably would have lost if she were he. Being female and the wife of a former president was what made her interesting. She was as exciting and interesting as Romney. Come to think of it, they are alike in more ways than one.
3
No, it is the taint of the Vichy regime. It is the reason so many voted for Macron, anybody but Le Pen.
Clinton doesn't need to make excuses for her loss, the media, including Leonhardt will do it for her. He complains there was little coverage of her plans for reducing inequality and climate change and her hawkish foreign policy views were ignored. The fact of the matter is she wasn't talking about any of that. All she talked about and studies of her advertising back it up (see Wesleyan Media Project analysis)was Trump. Her message was that Donald Trump is bad and that was it. The woman ran for president for at least three years and the media never was able to figure out what it was she was about. She felt she was entitled and people like Leonhardt thought she was entitled. The failure of the media was to not report how devoid her campaign was of discussion of the issues.
19
Disagree
Ross, Hillary was a terrible candidate but that does not mean her descriptions of Trump were incorrect. In fact, after 100 days of this idiot, she she has been proven to be right about Trump. He is an unmitigated disaster.
1
But Donald Trump IS bad! So what's your point?
France does not have the equivalent of a right wing Fox News channel. France elects their President on a popular vote basis, not some arcane electoral college process. France supports good basic public education for all. French citizens recognize they are part of a global community. That's why the French right-wing lost the election.
1017
Outside of the popular vote method, you could have been describing he US before the1980s.
2
Perhaps you should move to France. Having visited there many times I believe you would be very happy there.
2
Be careful, though! The Right wing is France is VERY vocal, and very strong! And France DOES have excellent education, but it also has problems and needs to truly adapt to the 21st Century and it's attendant realities, as do we here in the USA!
1
The media has never been innocent....you all thrive on sensationalism and have created a thirst for it in the public. It's like over-salting food until you can't taste the real thing. Al Gore never having said he invented the internet springs to mind yet the newspapers repeated it....you created Bush's campaign by what you chose to focus on. The NY Times was asked by thousands of readers to stop making Donald Trump your headlines every day and to listen to the substance of what Hillary was saying as well as to not be condescending to Bernie.....I'm certain that despite your realization, and this article too little too late, you will do the same thing during the next election and the politically illiterate part of the voting population that thrives on what the media offers will gobble it all up.....for shame, NY Times. This article excuses nothing.
85
I am afraid the author misses why the mails are relevant. Think of it as a detective. In a a detective every misplaced hair, every unusual move and every fingerprint can be relevant.
Think in that context of Hillary Clinton. The suspicions against her are about greed, financial improper actions, dishonesty, operating a political machine inside the Democratic Party and presenting a public persona that has little relationship with her real convictions (see the "deplorables"). People looking in her emails were looking for indications that would confirm such suspicions. And just as in a detective any "indication", no matter how tiny, was being brought up.
We see something similar now with Trump's Russia connection. There may be something in those allegations, but any close observer will confirm that much of what is hyped in the news is irrelevant and/or distorted.
As for Macron, the main suspicions against him are that he is a pawn of big money interests. Any news in that direction would have been interesting. It looks like nothing has been found in that direction.
Think in that context of Hillary Clinton. The suspicions against her are about greed, financial improper actions, dishonesty, operating a political machine inside the Democratic Party and presenting a public persona that has little relationship with her real convictions (see the "deplorables"). People looking in her emails were looking for indications that would confirm such suspicions. And just as in a detective any "indication", no matter how tiny, was being brought up.
We see something similar now with Trump's Russia connection. There may be something in those allegations, but any close observer will confirm that much of what is hyped in the news is irrelevant and/or distorted.
As for Macron, the main suspicions against him are that he is a pawn of big money interests. Any news in that direction would have been interesting. It looks like nothing has been found in that direction.
5
Much of what is hyped here is distorted, above all the implied moral equivalence between Trump and Clinton.
American journalism began its descent when one's appearance became more important than one's journalistic credentials. This is especially true for many cable news talking heads who have never sat through a journalism course and know nothing of journalistic integrity. Only ratings matter, and the holy dollar that follows.
Those of us who can read remain thankful for print journalists and journalism, but sadly fear we are a minority of the population.
Those of us who can read remain thankful for print journalists and journalism, but sadly fear we are a minority of the population.
35
Boy, am I glad you're open "to reflection and criticism" because the media deserves a lot of both. The problem is profits, or greed if you will. When networks moved their news dept. from the, non profit, journalism dept. to the, always for profit, entertainment arm of their multinational corporations, they moved the prime motivating factor for news from information to advertising revenue. Some would argue that those two things can exist simultaneously, but the fact is when something as serious as news gathering, healthcare, education, infrastructure or the government itself is run like a casino the people are not served well because the overarching feature of any casino is "the house always wins". And anyone interested in "the common good" would never be interested in those odds. When you start each 15 min segment with the ridiculous notion that you have "breaking news" you feel an obligation to sensationalize whatever comes next.
33
The French media did, of course, have the history of the Clinton email story to help guide them in their decisions.
22
Yes, the French also had advanced notice that the Russians intended to meddle in European elections, following their success in meddling in U.S. elections.
3
Over the last week or so everything I've read about France is just so positive. False news is admonished by the Government, no news network like Fox, a 44 hour ban before voting limiting campaign and media releases. Voting on Sunday, what a novel idea! An best of all, they elected someone with common sense. And as an extra treat, they have Paris!!!
Wonder if they accept refugees from the États Unis?
Wonder if they accept refugees from the États Unis?
89
We do... you'll be very welcome, chère amie !
2
UnePetiteParisenne,
Thank you so much. We love France and have visited many times. And will return. "Longue vie à la France"
Thank you so much. We love France and have visited many times. And will return. "Longue vie à la France"
1
And an excellent single payer health care system! And great trains.
3
There are two fundamental differences between countries like France, the Netherlands, Austria etc. on the one hand, and the US on the other. The first is the absence of a huge influence of money in politics: It is illegal in those countries to donate large sums of money to political campaigns. The second is the absence of a strong political agenda in one or more of their major media. All of these countries' biggest newspapers and TV channels may show a slightly center left or right bias, but by and large they are not out to manipulate public opinion into a specific direction. That is why extreme parties (akin to the American Republicans) fail to reach majorities there.
If the Democrats get a chance to control Congress again (because Republicans went too far), it should be their number one priority to curb or even eliminate the influence of money on US politics. This might be against the short term interest of a lot of Dems who have their own corporate backing, but if they fail to do so, it is just a matter of time before the GOP lies its way back into power for a long time. The deliberate spreading of falsehoods and fake news to change the outcome of elections should also be looked at of course, but it will be much harder to find a way to tackle this without violating Freedom of Speech.
If the Democrats get a chance to control Congress again (because Republicans went too far), it should be their number one priority to curb or even eliminate the influence of money on US politics. This might be against the short term interest of a lot of Dems who have their own corporate backing, but if they fail to do so, it is just a matter of time before the GOP lies its way back into power for a long time. The deliberate spreading of falsehoods and fake news to change the outcome of elections should also be looked at of course, but it will be much harder to find a way to tackle this without violating Freedom of Speech.
477
Amen! You have hit the nail right on the head.
No one raises money like the Clintons and the Obamas. Ask George Clooney he will tell you it's "obscene".
4
I wish that were true of France, but as the continuing scandal of the dark money that went to Sarkozy shows (see for instance here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/15/muammar-gaddafi-allegedly-.... the mix of money and politics is a plague there, too.
1
The American media should learn from the French media and deny the Russians the ability to influence our elections in any way, shape, or form. Any hacked material should be buried. They shouldn't see the light of day. The simple truth is that the Russians insert their own fiction to the hacked information. "Hacked" material should not be confused with "freedom of the press" issues. They are mutually exclusive, particularly so during our election cycles.
22
Some key relevant differences between the sane French Presidential Election and the nightmare that was the 2016 US Presidential Election:
1. Nothing equivalent to Fox News/Faux News in France. The right-wing media machine of Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Breitbart, Drudge, Alex Jones, talk radio that distorts the news and propagates lies and propaganda is stronger in US.
2. More mainstream media like CNN has increasingly become more entertainment than journalism. CNN still has some excellent journalists, but most of its programming is a shouting match between paid partisans - it's more wrestling match staged entertainment than journalism.
3. Even the very best of US journalism - NYT and WP - is under tremendous profit and technological shift pressures. And the sensational moves the merchandise. The only ones immune from the profits devouring real journalism are PBS and NPR.
4. Globalization, automation, immigration and terrorism are putting huge pressure on aging, mature democracies. People want change. Macron was change. Hillary was not.
5. The French Republicans are more sane and decent than US Republicans. The establishment right in France actively rejected the xenophobia, racism and Putin love and interference of Le Pen; the US establishment right embraced it with Trump.
6. Hillary faced the same double standard and sexism that all women face - Trump is allowed to lie constantly and insanely, but Hillary's email server was unacceptable.
1. Nothing equivalent to Fox News/Faux News in France. The right-wing media machine of Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Breitbart, Drudge, Alex Jones, talk radio that distorts the news and propagates lies and propaganda is stronger in US.
2. More mainstream media like CNN has increasingly become more entertainment than journalism. CNN still has some excellent journalists, but most of its programming is a shouting match between paid partisans - it's more wrestling match staged entertainment than journalism.
3. Even the very best of US journalism - NYT and WP - is under tremendous profit and technological shift pressures. And the sensational moves the merchandise. The only ones immune from the profits devouring real journalism are PBS and NPR.
4. Globalization, automation, immigration and terrorism are putting huge pressure on aging, mature democracies. People want change. Macron was change. Hillary was not.
5. The French Republicans are more sane and decent than US Republicans. The establishment right in France actively rejected the xenophobia, racism and Putin love and interference of Le Pen; the US establishment right embraced it with Trump.
6. Hillary faced the same double standard and sexism that all women face - Trump is allowed to lie constantly and insanely, but Hillary's email server was unacceptable.
192
I am afraid - truly - that PBS and NPR have been infected with Kochism. David Koch sits on the board and influences what is aired. He had PBS drop a documentary that was not flattering to Koch Industries a few years ago. NPR has spokesmen from Cato and Heritage just about daily. Those are not "balanced" by spokesmen from the Brookings Institution or the Nation just as regularly. The right wing economists spewing drivel are not challenged. I stopped contributing when Koch joined them and will not again until the Kochs are gone.
Please note, PBS/NPR, your association with the devil has not resulted in securing your federal funding. They are still after you. They want you to be just like the other stations: fighting for advertising dollars and the corrupting influence that brings.
Please note, PBS/NPR, your association with the devil has not resulted in securing your federal funding. They are still after you. They want you to be just like the other stations: fighting for advertising dollars and the corrupting influence that brings.
4
MC,
You might want to study some French history. Politics in France is a Blood sport with real blood.
You might want to study some French history. Politics in France is a Blood sport with real blood.
2
M.C., by this comment you are "Master of Ceremonies". So well summarized. Thank you for writing this comment.
1
you really want to take the position that there was nothing to see in the HRC email scandal?
did you happen to notice the head of the DNC had to resign?
did you happen to notice the DNC was in the tank for HRC from day one against poor Bernie Sanders?
and you call yourself an investigative journalist?
did you happen to notice the head of the DNC had to resign?
did you happen to notice the DNC was in the tank for HRC from day one against poor Bernie Sanders?
and you call yourself an investigative journalist?
10
The Dem Convention should have studied Calculus and used the difference between the derivative of the slopes of Bernie's support vs. Hillary's at the moment they met in Philly. She was a dead meat at that instant and Bernie was ripped off!
2
There's nothing scandalous if some members of the DNC preferred one candidate over another. Whether we like it or not, sensationalizing the trivialities in the emails caused many Democrats and Independents not to vote for Hillary (or to vote for Trump). I hope those people are happy now.
1
Pray, tell, what did any of these have to do with the policies and/or positions that Ms. Clinton would have followed as President. It seems to me that the French election was different because the news media concentrated on the substantive issues whereas so much of America media follows the David Gregory prescription, "I don't want to talk about the substance, I want to talk about the politics!"
4
I find that Americans thrive on sensationalism much more than the French. My experience is that the French continue to socialize in a different manner and discuss politics more in social settings. This brings a different level of importance to certain stories and allows for the human contact to prevail over allowing media to do all our thinking for us. It stays "real" so to speak.
Unfortunately, this seems to be slowly changing in French. But for the moment it appears to hold true.
Unfortunately, this seems to be slowly changing in French. But for the moment it appears to hold true.
17
The French have a long history of discussing politics at the point of a bayonet or next to a guillotine, dating back to their revolution and the Paris Commune. Currently the French Left has discussed politics by burning cars and shops as well as stoning the police! All very "social"!
1
Maybe the French media are not in business only to maximize revenues and profits, as the CEO (?) of CBS (in)famously remarked on the obsessive coverage of Trump and the elevation of emails to a digital biblical flood.
14
This is admirable in pointing certain circumstances out but the true instigation of the Clinton discrediting rests with the far right sympathizers.Fox News and Radio hosts like Coulter bellowed the flames and began the feeding frenzy. Step back to Benghazi hearings which later Fox publicly admitted exaggeration or unconfirmed allegations against Clinton.
We treasure our free press and the First Amendment rights but perhaps like in Canada, a broadcaster loses their license for false reporting might be considered a deterrent.
Americans obsession with need-to-know gossip and celebrity trivia also set the stage for newspapers and media to feed into that Enquirer mentality to sell print or airtime to those who devour such nonsense.
We treasure our free press and the First Amendment rights but perhaps like in Canada, a broadcaster loses their license for false reporting might be considered a deterrent.
Americans obsession with need-to-know gossip and celebrity trivia also set the stage for newspapers and media to feed into that Enquirer mentality to sell print or airtime to those who devour such nonsense.
44
This simply confirms the power of the orchestrated attack on Clinton by the Republican's extraordinarily consistent messaging was profound. They figured out how to use the press to make it appear she was a nefarious, evil person surrounding herself with a network of secrecy by using a laboratory of technology. I can't recall a day it wasn't discussed in depth on MSNBC. I would read Op-Ed pages where very angry people would parrot the hype d' jour verbatim. The reality was far less creepy and actually quite boring. France was the opposite.
56
We got rid of cable TV on 2009, sick of talking heads and media pundits telling us what to think rather than giving us Real News.
3
"...enough to say that the French media exercised better, more sober judgment than the American media."
Now, that is an exceptional fact, isn't it?
Now, that is an exceptional fact, isn't it?
15
In my crimson state, she was known as "Hilldebeast". Her email scandal was nothing more than confirmation bias. The votes were in before the election.
There were other purple states that turned crimson when that blue masked, red face promised to make America great again.
France is a very generous provider of unemployment benefits. It's universal healthcare system is largely financed by government national health insurance. In the good ole USA you can go from human being to pariah in the tick of a takeover. So in places like the rust belt, now graveyard it was easy to sell the Brooklyn Bridge or Trump Tower.
Vive Le France and the prudent Macron! Blank this place and they bought the con job!
There were other purple states that turned crimson when that blue masked, red face promised to make America great again.
France is a very generous provider of unemployment benefits. It's universal healthcare system is largely financed by government national health insurance. In the good ole USA you can go from human being to pariah in the tick of a takeover. So in places like the rust belt, now graveyard it was easy to sell the Brooklyn Bridge or Trump Tower.
Vive Le France and the prudent Macron! Blank this place and they bought the con job!
27
V,
France is also broke and has very high unemployment! Unemployment here is 4.4%!
France is also broke and has very high unemployment! Unemployment here is 4.4%!
4
@ Richard- My comment was intended to explain a very divided America vs a more united France. Ever hear of ZIRP? Greatest welfare check in history. Hurt savers in this part of the country. Bailed out Wall Street and the, "Banksters". Witnessed brilliant, hard working engineers and scientists lose their jobs, benefits and retirement to incompetent H -1B types during Bush run! My cousin jokes about wealthy sanitation workers retiring to Fla.from NYC. My children are gifted, doing well, but many of their friends are living happless lives.
4
The American media helped Donald Trump win more than any other factor. He was given a free pass, total access, total coverage, every single day. He plagued and flooded us every single day for almost two years. I was not surprised at all that he won. I'd let my guard down in the final stretch, but it is just common sense that when all people can talk about is this clown, he's going to win. In America, the land of cheap show business, that made perfect sense to me. And sadly, I was right.
69
The big difference is that France does not have Fox news and Breitbart, and the French are offended by attempts to manipulate them. The situation in the United States is lamentable. I wish more American citizens felt ashamed of it and of our ridiculous electoral system (electoral college) and tried to change them.
43
Less than 1% of Americans watch Fox and I doubt 0.1% has heard of Breitbart. You really need to visit America between LA and NY!
1
You are incorrect in your facts, and I spend no time in New York. My family comes from Virginia and North Carolina, so you know nothing about which you claim to speak.
What was missing was Trump trumpeting "emails emails emails emails" -- so that any live coverage carried that message regardless. With the 24-hour moratorium before voting, French voters were spared clips of Le Pen doing the same, as she most likely would have tried. Also, France had the model of the USA falling for the same trick several months before: the value of hindsight.
Did Trump know where the emails came from?
Was his use of the information outstandingly unethical?
Was the US, a nation geared to watching desperate housewives, primed to soak up this trash?
yes, yes, and YES!
The trajectory we seem to be following is brainless, heartless, and overwhelmingly selfish -- everyone out for his or her individual best deal. And the self-proclaimed big dealmaker at the top of the slippery slope, ready to give each citizen a push, while his inner circle watches from the corporate box.
Did Trump know where the emails came from?
Was his use of the information outstandingly unethical?
Was the US, a nation geared to watching desperate housewives, primed to soak up this trash?
yes, yes, and YES!
The trajectory we seem to be following is brainless, heartless, and overwhelmingly selfish -- everyone out for his or her individual best deal. And the self-proclaimed big dealmaker at the top of the slippery slope, ready to give each citizen a push, while his inner circle watches from the corporate box.
220
Perhaps the French media reviewed the released emails and found there was no substance to them, therefore, did not feel they were worthy of publication. On the other hand, the yellow journalism of the US media, who are profit driven, went with the leaker's view of the emails publicizing that the emails were evidence of criminal activity.
A lie travels half way around the world before the truth gets its pants on. That is the difference, not the French law but the ethical standards of the journalists who reported the stories and the publishers who published them. The US journalists are more interested in headlines and ad dollars than reporting the facts.
You can try to legislate morality but it never works. Freedom of the press has to be held in check by the freedom of the reading public to not buy the lies that are being published.
A lie travels half way around the world before the truth gets its pants on. That is the difference, not the French law but the ethical standards of the journalists who reported the stories and the publishers who published them. The US journalists are more interested in headlines and ad dollars than reporting the facts.
You can try to legislate morality but it never works. Freedom of the press has to be held in check by the freedom of the reading public to not buy the lies that are being published.
206
Or perhaps they suffer from the idea that they are smarter than anybody and thus censor the information or data that the idiotic public should have.
2
Being aware of and caring about the difference between the truth and propaganda would be a good starting point. Therein lies the problem with a large part of the American electorate which has been displayed increasingly over the past five decades. Your nation has it's work cut out for it.
1
Did I hear you say "reading public"?
Boy are we in trouble then!
Boy are we in trouble then!
This should be obvious, but making a profit by selling sensationalism has literally ruined America. And I don't see any way out since ethics and doing the right thing now seem always to lose out to greed, and some regulation to save us from ourselves is of course frowned upon as it handicaps the "winners" at all cost like Fox and Trump & Co
30
First off, no, the fact that Hillary's campaign colluded with the DNC to skew the primaries in her favour is not 'small beer'.
As for the emails...
Leaving aside the fact that it was not just 'bad judgement', it was in fact illegal (watch the original Comey press briefing), the email scandal, such as it was, was a huge boon for Clinton. Why? Because when the fawning media wasted time on her emails they weren't talking about her policies in Honduras, or her response to the arrival of refugee Honduran children on the southern border. They weren't talking about how hard she pressed Obama to start a full blown intervention in Syria, her strong advocacy for the American bombing of Libya (which may not have occurred without her), and her jokes about murdering people like Edward Snowden. The email scandal deflected from her stances against universal healthcare, against a $15 minimum wage, against expanding social security, and against reinstating Glass-Steagall. The email scandal made people forget that she blamed the 2008 crash on home-buyers, not Wall Street, that she opposes liberalising marijuana laws, was against marriage equality until 2013 (!), or that she not only voted in favour of a border fence, she co-sponsored a bill to build one! Imagine if the American people realised that their choice in 2016 was between a border fence and a border wall...
The email scandal obscured the fact that she was a pro-corporate, centre-right war-monger. In other words: a Republican.
As for the emails...
Leaving aside the fact that it was not just 'bad judgement', it was in fact illegal (watch the original Comey press briefing), the email scandal, such as it was, was a huge boon for Clinton. Why? Because when the fawning media wasted time on her emails they weren't talking about her policies in Honduras, or her response to the arrival of refugee Honduran children on the southern border. They weren't talking about how hard she pressed Obama to start a full blown intervention in Syria, her strong advocacy for the American bombing of Libya (which may not have occurred without her), and her jokes about murdering people like Edward Snowden. The email scandal deflected from her stances against universal healthcare, against a $15 minimum wage, against expanding social security, and against reinstating Glass-Steagall. The email scandal made people forget that she blamed the 2008 crash on home-buyers, not Wall Street, that she opposes liberalising marijuana laws, was against marriage equality until 2013 (!), or that she not only voted in favour of a border fence, she co-sponsored a bill to build one! Imagine if the American people realised that their choice in 2016 was between a border fence and a border wall...
The email scandal obscured the fact that she was a pro-corporate, centre-right war-monger. In other words: a Republican.
11
Hope you are happy with Trump!
6
Maybe the real lesson is, this isn't why she lost.
7
I was disappointed by The NY Times coverage of the Wikileaks and email during the campaign. After Clinton's loss, the Times had the audacity to send its subscribers a self-congratulatory email proclaiming that their work on the 2016 election coverage was a job well done.
Disappointment quickly turned to rage. I cancelled my subscription on the spot.
I have since gotten over that and reactivated my subscription. It has become dangerously clear that fact-based reporting and opinion pieces are more vital now than ever and quality news needs to be supported. But this support cannot be unconditional if it is to have any meaning or purpose. In other words, my forbearance for the sort of poisonous nonsense we saw in 2016 is spent.
Disappointment quickly turned to rage. I cancelled my subscription on the spot.
I have since gotten over that and reactivated my subscription. It has become dangerously clear that fact-based reporting and opinion pieces are more vital now than ever and quality news needs to be supported. But this support cannot be unconditional if it is to have any meaning or purpose. In other words, my forbearance for the sort of poisonous nonsense we saw in 2016 is spent.
45
Mathew,
How "outraged" were you over the publishing of the Pentagon Papers?
How "outraged" were you over the publishing of the Pentagon Papers?
4
Matthew, NYT was so utterly distorting election coverage (and is still doing it) that they hushed up any news about Bernie. Jimmy Carter voted for Bernie, here's why
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/09/yall-see-w...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/09/yall-see-w...
3
Enough. The media did focus on her policy proclamations including her vacillations on Trans pacific trade agreement; her wrongful decision on our intervention in Libya and her inability to learn from her mistakes by advocating similar unspecified actions in Syria. On a personal level the strong advocate for women's rights demonized Bill's accusers while rightfully condemning Trump on the media coverage of his demeaning attitudes towards women. The Comey letter was quite justified as classified emails showing up on the computer of a disgraced politician who makes indiscrimante use of the internet is a big deal. It's hard to predict what people will focus on and why. It's not up to the media to decide but to report and let people decide for themselves what is important. Hillary lost the election the old fashioned what. She earned it.
7
The TPP was a good trade agreement and withdrawing from it will haunt is in a future. Libya was the right call at that time, supported by almost all republicans, including Trump and by EU, NATO and UN.
Hard to blame Clinton for any of those. Comey should have disclosed on Trump Russia investigation as well, why be selective on Clinton?
Hard to blame Clinton for any of those. Comey should have disclosed on Trump Russia investigation as well, why be selective on Clinton?
Most of the US media has become a propaganda arm of the plutocrats, tyrants, liars, hypocrites that reflect the values of evil, fascist oligarchs. We are watching 1934 unfold before our eyes and there is nothing we can do. They hide behind the first amendment and attack, destroy and demonize honest, truthful, fact based reporters. Democracy is doomed in the United States. Welcome to Russian news agencies.
13
Most of the media has become celebrity gossip news. Garbage. Media was more interested that Beyonce was performing for the Obamas or the Clintons and Kerry Washington (fictional DC power lady) was campaigning for Hillary. Who cares?
What the media did not and does not realize is that despite ignoring Bernie, his followers created an entirely parallel media. At any given time, there were close to 11 million viewers on his campaign rally live streaming. All these 11 million viewers couldn't fit into a football stadium, but they were present for him. If not live, they watched him multiple times on archives and replays. Not just the millennials, but their parents. grandparents, aunts and uncles.
It is so strange that the mainstream media did not even pick up on this. They and the pollsters tried hard to bulldoze Bernie's campaign instead of covering him in an objective, fair manner. What they succeeded in doing was displacing faith in main stream media. Millions of Millennials refused to read NYT election coverage.
What the media did not and does not realize is that despite ignoring Bernie, his followers created an entirely parallel media. At any given time, there were close to 11 million viewers on his campaign rally live streaming. All these 11 million viewers couldn't fit into a football stadium, but they were present for him. If not live, they watched him multiple times on archives and replays. Not just the millennials, but their parents. grandparents, aunts and uncles.
It is so strange that the mainstream media did not even pick up on this. They and the pollsters tried hard to bulldoze Bernie's campaign instead of covering him in an objective, fair manner. What they succeeded in doing was displacing faith in main stream media. Millions of Millennials refused to read NYT election coverage.
2
At the end of the day it is the American people who have the final say, and as I see it now, it is pretty scary. We have a democratic Republic and in 2016 American people were clamoring for an authoritarian rule to fix the congressional gridlock and inability to have anything done, that we have been having last decade or so. I think it is the American people who are losing it, and that doesn't bode well for our democratic Republic.
We need ( as a secure and strong Democracy ) a vibrant and dedicated 4th estate. I hold in great esteem those that do their jobs properly and are dogged in seeking out the truth.
Having said that, I am let down ( as well as others to be sure ) when reporters, journalists and especially pundits, are lax in their interviews of those in the spotlight.
Too often, I am slack jawed looking at the screen or listening to an interview, where obvious and specious ( implausible ) '' facts '' are relayed without confrontation. Too often the offending parties are let to go on and on with their diatribes without check, for fear of offending them. ( and not being able to book them again )
Too often, ( in this 24 hour constant revolving cycle ) a story is dropped for the next lurch forward. There is a letting go of a story for the hope or appearance of an even bigger one.
Too often, interviewees walk away without answering with the truth. When they are confronted again the next day, it is if a new slate has been offered and there is no mention of the previous day's omissions.
That is the most frustrating and most damaging part. Please correct.
Our Democracy depends on it.
Having said that, I am let down ( as well as others to be sure ) when reporters, journalists and especially pundits, are lax in their interviews of those in the spotlight.
Too often, I am slack jawed looking at the screen or listening to an interview, where obvious and specious ( implausible ) '' facts '' are relayed without confrontation. Too often the offending parties are let to go on and on with their diatribes without check, for fear of offending them. ( and not being able to book them again )
Too often, ( in this 24 hour constant revolving cycle ) a story is dropped for the next lurch forward. There is a letting go of a story for the hope or appearance of an even bigger one.
Too often, interviewees walk away without answering with the truth. When they are confronted again the next day, it is if a new slate has been offered and there is no mention of the previous day's omissions.
That is the most frustrating and most damaging part. Please correct.
Our Democracy depends on it.
609
FunkyIrishman is exactly right and it is frustrating, infuriating, disheartening and finally is doing some serious damage to our democracy. Is it as simple as the need to have access to these folks? You don't want to push to hard, you don't want to call out a lie for fear of offending someone you're likely to run into at a party in Washington or New York some day? I simply have never understood this aspect of journalism. Why is it so hard for you folks to call a lie a lie?
8
"Too often the offending parties are let to go on and on with their diatribes without check, for fear of offending them. ( and not being able to book them again )"
There is no consequence for the GOP when they lie on TV. You can even see the smug smile at the end of the interview when they get away with it. The worst? That is a tough call, but Rep. Marsha Blackburn has to be one of the most dishonest humans to dis-grace CNN.
There is no consequence for the GOP when they lie on TV. You can even see the smug smile at the end of the interview when they get away with it. The worst? That is a tough call, but Rep. Marsha Blackburn has to be one of the most dishonest humans to dis-grace CNN.
4
You have absolutely hit the nail on the head! This kind of fake interview or press briefing drives me crazy. Listening to the 'journalists' in Spicer's press briefings ramble on and on trying to pretend to be asking a big question, only to have the answer be meaningless is just pathetic. To me they are all just cowards.
2
Perhaps we should enact out own blackout law just prior to an election. It would certainly be more civilized than what we do now.
346
Paul,
Great idea, get the votes to change our Constitution and go for it!
Great idea, get the votes to change our Constitution and go for it!
1
in total agreement with your comment. I believe, however, that most of the times when an interview like the ones you mention occurs, is the interviewer that is not well informed about the subject being discussed, and cannot question or reject answers that are obviously wrong, false or misleading. The republicans are masters at taken advantage of these situations.
What and deprive the media of its cherished "October surprise" mentality?
2
The Hillary Clinton emails contained the content of her Goldman Sachs speeches. This rendered her promises on inequality, climate change, etc. moot.
11
This is not the only French lesson. Cf. the media treatment of Melania Trump (e.g. pictures in New York Post etc. ) with the French media on Brigitte Macron. Imagine what the US media would have done in a similar instance.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/06/politics/emmanuel-macron-wife-marriage...
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/06/politics/emmanuel-macron-wife-marriage...
6
The Republicans seize on a possible Democratic issue and then amplify it in the toxic right wing media machine 24/7, not for a news cycle, but for years. Consider the incident in Benghazi where every possible fictional conspiracy theory was hashed over for years so that eventually, the tragedy became a bumper sticker blaming HRC as if she ruthlessly murdered our people herself. The email server took on the same broad outlines--anything that would demonstrate a possible error in her judgement was forced into the public's perception of her character and fitness for political office. The tragic irony in this election is that Donald Trump, who under any other presidential election cycle. would have receive less than 40 percent of the vote because of so many examples of his many character flaws. It's simply tragic that our corporate media must buy into a fictional story line simply to stay competitive and attract the publics' audience.
109
The email issue emerged out of the Benghazi witchhunt.
4
Well it would be more accurate if you stated that's their story and they are sticking to it, plus they are not wiling to put any money on the line showing it possible to do otherwise.
1
The success of Benghazi propaganda gave way to email propaganda, equally successful. Let's not forget that major part of that is because large part of American public is unable to make any reasonable and independent judgement. The Republic is in crisis because American people are unable to keep it.
3
Yes Hillary Clinton made a mistake by utilizing her private email server. Had she not done so perhaps the WikiLeaks of her campaign emails wouldn't have had as much juice because they were largely mundane. But unfortunately her email server opened her up to innuendo which was very damaging. I've heard some people consider that action the equivalent of political malpractice.
But what frustrates me about our press during this election was that they actually implied that her private email server was equivalent to the hate speech and corruption that was visible throughout Trump's entire campaign. Our press chose to put ratings ahead of their duty to their country. In comparing apples to oranges the press made it seem that Trump and Hillary were both equally bad candidates and perpetrated the myth that either choice was going to be bad.
The French press on the other hand chose to put country first. Rather than focusing on ratings they asked themselves if they were going to allow outsiders to manipulate their election and they wisely chose not to do so. Hopefully our press will remember going forward that they are supposed to protect us from tyranny.
But what frustrates me about our press during this election was that they actually implied that her private email server was equivalent to the hate speech and corruption that was visible throughout Trump's entire campaign. Our press chose to put ratings ahead of their duty to their country. In comparing apples to oranges the press made it seem that Trump and Hillary were both equally bad candidates and perpetrated the myth that either choice was going to be bad.
The French press on the other hand chose to put country first. Rather than focusing on ratings they asked themselves if they were going to allow outsiders to manipulate their election and they wisely chose not to do so. Hopefully our press will remember going forward that they are supposed to protect us from tyranny.
749
The solution was so simple. All Hillary had to do (if email was really the issue, only the media made it one, the voters did not care a tiny bit nor did Bernie, her democratic opposer), was say I am so sorry, I should have been more careful and own the mistake. That's all it takes. But you see it is a pattern. She did the same with Bill, she kept taking him back after each of his wanderings. People can pick up these non verbal nuances. My daughter who was a baby during the Clinton impeachment hearings, only later learned of the "Clinton scandals". A lifelong loyal democrat, she cringingly voted for Hillary, reluctantly, unenthusiastically and feeling small and compelled.
Ami,
Two words on the subject, Pentagon Papers!
Two words on the subject, Pentagon Papers!
3
Well Gee a "mistake" is not what it was, rather a crime. And the press does not protect us from tyranny, the constitution does that.
5
In the days before cable news, the internet and social media, editors (of respected news organizations, that is, not necessarily the NY Mirror,etc..) performed the function of fact checking a story before publication.
Today, all bets are off.