If the 'press corps' says it, doubt it . James Clay Fuller, a retired journalist who has worked in newspapers and magazines for more than 45 years, tells us that yes, the media is as awful as we think it is and explains how things got so bad. In the course ruminating, Fuller writes about how the Clinton team treats the media, and I must say that I am not at all surprised. Fuller writes: A few days ago, the New York Times ran an article on Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff's treatment and manipulation of reporters. It was very telling.
Clinton and her staff people chew out reporters who do stories they don't like -– and accuracy has nothing to do with the complaints. They will call reporters in the middle of the night to berate them, the Times reported. They also call top-level editors to complain about perfectly legitimate and accurate stories if they somehow reflect badly on Clinton or well on her opponents. They regularly threaten to remove a reporter's “access” if the reporter doesn't write what Clinton wants to see, and only that.
It is, as the Times pointed out, exactly the method used by the Bush White House to control what the public sees, and it works as well for Clinton.
It wouldn't work if even a large minority of the press corps refused to knuckle under. But don't expect the current bunch of snivelers to grow spines any time soon.
There are many reasons why I don't want Hillary to win the democratic presidential nomination, but one of the most pressing is this: I don't think I can stand the idea of having to write about Hill, or her fucking campaign, or her latest say-nothing bullshit speech, etc. for the six or seven months before, mercifully, the campaign season finally comes to its end. Long and short, Hill must lose or this becomes a food blog.
Thanks to John for the link.
