In other words, you still haven't read it and still can't accurately describe my position.
I also see that *I* helped foist Clinton on everyone as the Democratic nominee, as a private citizen who didn't give any money during the primaries, didn't volunteer for her campaign during the primaries, and who doesn't have any notably large platform and who only voted during the primary
after she clinched the nomination...
Meanwhile, suggesting that the NYT's over-hyped and incessant coverage of a trivial and irrelevant scandal (and other "raises questions" and "casts a cloud" bullshit coverage like the time that her husband went on a diplomatic mission, and his aides who had Clinton Foundation connections asked for diplomatic passports for use on this diplomatic mission... and then
didn't get those passports) while giving comparatively little coverage to issues that would actually affect voters' lives and not giving far more serious Trump scandals an equivalent volume of coverage... To say that may have been unfairly damaging to Clinton and thus helped cost her the election is totally implausible.
Of course, you have yet to discuss the relative volume of coverage given to various things, since the notion that a trivial matter of Clinton's email server was worthy of more coverage than every public policy issue is self-evidently ludicrous. The notion that her email server deserved more coverage than Trump's fraudulent university fleecing thousands of people of millions of dollars is also self-evidently ridiculous. So you will attack a straw man instead.
You have no interest in such critiques as this one published at the
Columbia Journalism Review, instead you attack straw men claims like that I think the
NYT should not have covered the Comey letter
at all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CJR
In just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.
|
It's hard for david to respond to such observations, because to accept that the media did a bad job in a way that helped Trump/harmed Clinton would imply that Hillary Clinton is not the only one who deserves criticism for the outcome of the election. (Well, apparently *I* also deserve more blame than the
NYT.)
So he will plug his ears and pretend that those arguments don't exist at all
