When it comes to Hillary Clinton, the national media have flagrantly abandoned their duty as a supposedly independent, dispassionate press. They have shamelessly served as cheerleaders for Mrs. Clinton from the moment she emerged on the national scene in 1992, with Time’s Margaret Carlson describing her as “an amalgam of Betty Crocker, Mother Teresa, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.” Liberal reporters — and, truth be told, female liberal reporters especially — have hailed her as a feminist role model, a brilliant intellect, a politician of striking compassion, an inspiring leader, and more. What makes the media’s coverage of Hillary Clinton even more deplorable are the recurring examples of noncoverage.This is just one excerpt from their book.
UPDATE: Camille Paglia:
The mainstream media have been in a breathless tizzy about how Hillary Clinton waffled, tripped, stumbled or generally screwed up at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia two weeks ago. But Hillary's performance at prior debates was never as deft or "flawless" as the media claimed in the first place. Conventional wisdom has now flipped, and the air-headed lemmings of our free press have turned on a dime and are stampeding in the opposite direction.Paglia says this goes back to her Senate campaign, and the media were "criminally complicit". Yes. Though I still don't think they will ask her the questions that need to be asked unless they are pushed into it by other candidates, or other media.
And she loathes Bill:
But I continue to find it hard to believe that my party truly craves that long nightmare of déjà vu -- with scandal after scandal disgorged and an endless train of abused women returning from Bill Clinton's sordid, anti-feminist past.Previous post: Seeing Through Hillary
No comments:
Post a Comment