Jophiel wrote:
Amusingly, Clinton has a pretty terrible relationship with the media. So conspiracy theories that the media is trying hard to bury this for Clinton are... a bit hard to swallow.
She has a terrible relationship with reporters. And yeah, they're investigating this to death right now. But reporters don't decide where their stories show up in the papers, or on the web pages, or whether they get scheduled time slots on a broadcast. The folks who make those decisions tend to not have nearly so bad a relationship with Clinton, nor seem to be as adverse to helping her out (well, helping out a Dem in general).
Quote:
People aren't running the story because it's a snoozer.
Based on the flurry of questions and Clinton's evasive answers in the conference she gave, I'd say that's not the case at all. The reporters in the room certainly seemed to think this was a big deal. Again though, there's a difference between what the guy on the street thinks the public should know about, and what the guy in the boardroom wants to show the public. I just thought it was very interesting how stark that difference appeared in this case.
Quote:
Most people don't give a shit about email servers and there's no real hook here to make them care (unless you're a Fox viewer and already looking for something to wave your arms in the air about).
Really? How much air time do you suppose CNN gave to the boring story about private email accounts used for government business back when it was the Bush White House staff being investigated. I'm reasonably certain that didn't drop from their coverage list in under 24 hours, despite being a far more tenuous allegation involved, and the actions were far less potentially criminal, during a time period when it was far more reasonable for people to use personal email, and it was just email and not personal servers, and it was people who were far less highly placed.
Yeah. I'm not buying that explanation at all.
Quote:
Republicans will overplay their hand by making a big deal out of something most people don't understand or care about and will come across as overly partisan about a trivial matter. Having three separate committees already formed in the House to investigate Clinton's email is a great start on getting that ball rolling.
If "most people" don't understand or care about it, it will be because the media will actively choose not to cover it. Kinda of the cart leading the horse here. Objectively, what Clinton did is (or should be) at the very least incredibly suspicious from a political perspective, and possibly criminal. Are you arguing that we should just ignore anything Clinton does because of who she is? What exactly does she have to do before you'll agree that maybe an investigation is justified?
Edited, Mar 13th 2015 4:45pm by gbaji