The Editorial Board of the Washington Post did something I’ve never seen a major newspaper do: They called out the rest of the mainstream media for gross journalistic negligence. They tore into Matt Lauer’s disgraceful harping on Hillary’s emails and lambasted the media for turning what is, at best, a side issue into a central pillar of a presidential election:
JUDGING BY the amount of time NBC’s Matt Lauer spent pressing Hillary Clinton on her emails during Wednesday’s national security presidential forum, one would think that her homebrew server was one of the most important issues facing the country this election. It is not. There are a thousand other substantive issues — from China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea to National Security Agency intelligence-gathering to military spending — that would have revealed more about what the candidates know and how they would govern. Instead, these did not even get mentioned in the first of 5½ precious prime-time hours the two candidates will share before Election Day, while emails took up a third of Ms. Clinton’s time.
“The story has vastly exceeded the boundaries of the facts.”
The Board defends its stance by knocking down the cottage industry that has grown up around reporting on Hillary’s emails but somehow manages to ignore “several pieces of news reported Wednesday should have taken some steam out of the story.”
First is a memo FBI Director James B. Comey sent to his staff explaining that the decision not to recommend charging Ms. Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and that people “chest-beating” and second-guessing the FBI do not know what they are talking about. Anyone who claims that Ms. Clinton should be in prison accuses, without evidence, the FBI of corruption or flagrant incompetence.
Another had to do with an email conversation Clinton had with Colin Powell which proved that Hillary was telling the truth when she said Powell advised her to use a private server. Hillary was widely accused of lying about this. I won’t be holding my breath for the apologies to come rolling in.
Finally, the Board discusses the oh-so-dramatic retaliation that 30 BENGHAZI EMAILS were found by the FBI. And what did the “liberal” media forget to mention in its rush to condemn Hillary?
Only one, in fact, was previously undisclosed, and it contained nothing but a compliment from a diplomat. But the damage of the “30 deleted Benghazi emails” story has already been done.
The Board goes on to criticize Hillary for not being more careful but they are very clear, in a way very few media outlets have bothered to emulate, that there is exactly zero evidence that national security was compromised in any way whatsoever.
What we are witnessing is the greatest failure of America’s press to behave in a responsible manner since they allowed the Bush Administration to lie us into a war in Iraq.
The “liberal” media is addicted to two things: Horse race politics and false equivalency. The first because a close race is more “exciting” and “excitement” equals higher ratings and hundreds of millions in advertising revenue. The second stems from a pathological need to be “neutral” no matter how insane the result.
Separately, either of these deep-rooted drives seriously distorts the media’s coverage (remember how “close” the 2012 election was supposed to be? Obama won the electoral college 332-206); but combined, they’ve formed a dangerously myopic singularity that has twisted our election coverage into something unrecognizable as “journalism.”
This means that in a year where one candidate is an unstable buffoon openly appealing to the KKK and Neo-Nazis for support and the other is one of the most experienced and qualified candidates in the nation’s history, the “liberal” media cannot stop itself from grading on a curve to keep the buffoon competitive. Conversely, they’ve been unable to stop themselves from savagely attacking Hillary to keep her from running away with the election in the public’s eye.
For the love of all that’s holy, they made Hillary coughing into a major story! But they can’t seem to muster any enthusiasm for reporting on Donald Trump’s numerous lawsuits that include fraud, racketeering, refusing to pay his employees and contractors, and, oh, a case involving Donald Trump allegedly raping a 13-year-old girl that was tied to a bed.
Oceans of digital ink have been spilled investigating Hillary Clinton’s foundation and when nothing untoward was found, the “liberal” media invented a new metric for condemning the candidate: Optics. It “looked” bad so even though every investigation cleared her name, she was STILL guilty of…something. These same “neutral” reporters, however, are utterly uninterested in Trump’s obvious payoff to Pam Bondi, the Florida Attorney General that dropped an investigation into Trump’s fraudulent university 4 days after getting a $25,000 dollar “donation” from Trump’s foundation.
The pattern of elevating the mundane into scandal and reducing the scandalous to the mundane is a hallmark of this election cycle and the Washington Post is sick of it:
Imagine how history would judge today’s Americans if, looking back at this election, the record showed that voters empowered a dangerous man because of . . . a minor email scandal. There is no equivalence between Ms. Clinton’s wrongs and Mr. Trump’s manifest unfitness for office.
Featured image by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images