The Hillary Clinton campaign’s efforts to connect President Donald Trump to Russia sent the nation’s media elite on a frenzied hunt for a smoking gun that would prove allegations that the U.S.’s Cold War foe meddled in the 2016 election. Meanwhile, a scandal which could have bigger political consequences than Watergate– one involving actual collusion between Clinton and the Kremlin– went largely unreported for years.
Sure, the incredible Uranium One saga is a story about political corruption and cover-up at the highest levels of American government. And it’s true that the mainstream media, however reluctantly, is finally coming around to acknowledging that something is seriously rotten in the Clinton camp.
but the reports are still only coming at a snail’s pace. As NewsBusters pointed out in an analysis of MSM news coverage Wednesday:
Imagine $500,000 in Russian money being paid for a speech delivered by Donald Trump or a member of his family. But Bill Clinton’s big payday has generated ZERO network news coverage this week, and only a single reference on ABC’s This Week back in 2015, when the book Clinton Cash first disclosed the potential scandal.
In fact, from April 2015 through last night, the Clinton/Uranium/Russia story has been granted only 3 minutes, 21 seconds of evening news coverage — less than one-half of one percent of the coverage doled out just this year to the conspiracy theories surrounding Trump and Russia.
ABC’s World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News have been the most intensive, churning out 350 minutes and 381 minutes of evening news coverage of the Trump/Russia story, respectively, while the NBC Nightly News aired a relatively restrained 269 minutes of coverage since January 20. (Note: These statistics include weekend broadcasts, when aired in the Washington D.C. area.)
Combined, the three evening newscasts have aired a total of 5,015 minutes of coverage of the Trump administration since Inauguration Day, which means the Russia story alone has comprised almost exactly one-fifth of all Trump news this year.
And that’s the real story the mainstream media isn’t going to acknowledge anytime soon. It’s the tale of how the Clinton political dynasty perfected the art of media manipulation and played a massive role in destroying press credibility. The real story of the 2016 election isn’t fake news and Russian meddling. It’s our nation’s press-release press.
If you think back a few months and remember some of the “biggest” stories which were supposed to provide evidence of Trump collusion with Russia, you’ll remember that most of them included very little information of substance. Journalists who claim their job is to answer questions for the reading public simply published question, after question, after question about Trump. They peddled leaks from unidentified sources and generated much discussion about shady “intelligence reports” like the now infamous Trump dossier, which skeptics pointed out from the beginning bore no resemblance to an actual intelligence document– but Americans have yet to read a single substantive report proving the allegations against the president.
Of course, this is the same media who told us for more than a year ahead of the election that Clinton would be the inevitable victor. MSM backed its claims with a mixture of its own skewed polls and those provided by political operatives.
So even if the Russians did buy some Facebook ads to make Clinton look bad, it seems pretty clear that only Clinton and the DNC had the influence to directly warp the perceptions of our supposedly objective media institutions throughout the election.
Just over a year ago, I told you the story of how the Clintons began setting up an actual fake news machine back when Bill was still the nation’s most powerful sexual predator.
Given the level of attention sexual misconduct is getting today, that story is worth remembering. By trading access for control over media coverage, the Clintons were able to turn a story about the most powerful man in the world using his elected office to benefit his sexual urges into a story about “bimbo eruptions.”
And journalists who refused to play ball with the Clintons were attacked by those who’d taken the rotten deal.
From the piece:
[The] Clintons’ favorite pet, then White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, was working overtime to bring mainstream and well-respected journalists on board with an actual conspiracy set up by the Clinton campaign. Blumenthal’s main job at the time was spreading super-secret insider tips to journalists that Monica Lewinsky was stalking the president.
It was, of course, a lie meant to portray Lewinsky as an unstable young woman who had thrown herself into the unwilling president’s lap.
Unfortunately for the Clinton spin machine, one of the leftist liberals they’d counted on to help them spread the untruth, Blumenthal’s good friend and British journalist Christopher Hitchens, declined the invitation to serve as a Clinton puppet.
Hitchens would even later go so far as testifying in Clinton’s impeachment trial about a lunch he shared with Blumenthal as the White House official implored him to put the Lewinsky lie in print for his legion of trusting readers.
Hitchens’ failure to play along with the Clintons ended up costing him friends and, if briefly, bringing all kinds of negative attention his way.
After testifying before Congress that Blumenthal tried to conscript him has a Clinton propaganda stooge to spread the Lewinsky lie, Hitchens was ruthlessly mocked by his Washington insider colleagues.
The New York Time’s Maureen Dowd took to calling him “Christopher Snitchens.” Others went further, accusing him of being secretly gay, a Holocaust denier and criticizing him for leaving his first wife for American author Carol Blue.
Because Hitchens opened America’s eyes to the mainstreamers’ willingness to go along with whatever the Clintons wanted, they attacked him with the same sort of smear campaign they’d run on Lewinsky.
Read the whole thing: Big media made a deal with the Clinton devil long ago
Unfortunately, Hitchens passed away in 2011. The journalist’s take on the current state of affairs surrounding the Clintons, people he decided back in 1992 were “quite seriously nasty,” would certainly be worth reading. And the broader media establishment isn’t going to admit its folly unmolested.
But as the Clinton fall from political grace hastens and corruption investigations ramp up, hopefully there’s another Hitchens out there, a respected member of the Washington media willing to call out colleagues for becoming political stooges.