349
In the final weeks of the presidential campaign, major newspapers are giving former President Donald Trump’s federal criminal indictment for alleged crimes related to the January 6 insurrection a fraction of the coverage they gave former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server in 2016, according to a new Media Matters study. Media Matters reviewed print coverage in five newspapers — Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post — for stories mentioning Trump’s indictment in the week following U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s October 2 unsealing of special counsel Jack Smith’s latest filing, which reveals damning new evidence of the former president’s alleged crimes. We found the papers ran 26 combined articles mentioning Trump’s indictment in the week after the unsealing of Smith’s filing. But those same papers published 100 combined articles — nearly 4 times as many — that mentioned Clinton’s server in the week after then-FBI Director James Comey’s notorious October 28, 2016, letter on new developments in that probe, as we documented in a 2016 study. The papers ran more than 6 times as many combined front-page stories that mentioned Clinton’s server (46) as they did front-page stories that mentioned Trump’s indictment (7) over those periods. Obsessive news media focus on Clinton’s server in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign helped Trump to victory, even as Comey ultimately reconfirmed that no charges were appropriate in the case. But eight years later, with one presidential candidate facing active prosecution for federal charges related to his attempt to subvert an election, outlets are making different choices.
Look, it’s become obvious your sources are biased and you won’t consider anything I say, so this is a pointless conversation. I’m done wasting my time and energy sourcing my comments with real data and being met with unsourced right-wing propaganda or TikToks.
If you want to actually have your views matter in future elections I’d still strongly recommend you look into FairVote Action rather than getting angry at people online.
I Am not angry, I have literally addressed all your requests. You are not gonna make me to the be the ignorant one when you clearly only hear what you want. Like thats why you keep trying to discredit everything I say for no reason, it tells me what you about.
You may feel you have addressed my questions, but you haven’t, and your assertions haven’t held up well thus far.
I really recommend you step back and look at your views with a critical eye – forget anything I or anyone else has said, and really look at who you are without preconceptions or bias. That’s not very easy to do, but you seem the type who could do it.
I’m done for now. I’d be interested to talk with you after you’ve done this, cheers.