General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow the Media Manufactured Hatred of Hillary Clinton
"The fact is that Hillary Clinton wasnt unpopular when she announced her decision to run in April 2015. If you look at the Gallup survey in March of last year, 50 percent of Americans had a favorable impression of Clinton, only 39 percent an unfavorable one. So there was clearly no deep reservoir of Clinton hatred among the general public at the time. On the contrary: Americans liked her; they liked her quite a bit.
Already by June, however, her favorability had not only taken a hit. It had plummeted. By July, according to Gallup, her favorability hit an all-time low with only 38 percent positively and 57 percent viewing her negatively putting her 19 points underwater."
http://billmoyers.com/story/last-night-3/
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)And that wasnt all. As reported in a study by Harvard Universitys Shorenstein Center on media coverage in the pre-primary period, Clinton received especially negative coverage overwhelmingly negative. At the same time, both Sanders and Trump received extremely positive coverage. As the report put it: Whereas media coverage helped build up Trump, it helped tear down Clinton. Trumps positive coverage was the equivalent of millions of dollars in ad-buys in his favor, whereas Clintons negative coverage can be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the receiving end. And Shorenstein found there was a ratio of 45 negative stories to one positive story on the emails, much of them generated by Republicans and Fox News and picked up by mainstream media, who readily quoted the Republicans. Eighty-four percent of Clintons coverage in this period was negative in tone. Moreover, her coverage in the primary period, as studied by Shorenstein, continued to be disproportionately focused on emails and continued to be heavily negative 10 negative stories for every positive one.
The transition from the story of the emails to the story of unpopularity itself followed as night does day and rapidly gained a momentum all its own, to the point where it is now quite possibly the central narrative of the election...
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)The relentless negative coverage was unbelievable. By the time June rolls around next year, if you ask 100 Trump voters just what it was about Secretary Clinton they hated so much, I'm guessing their answer will be something, something Obamacare or Benghazi. If you follow up and ask specifically what about Obamacare or Benghazi was so heinous, you'll get a very blank stare.
sarah FAILIN
(2,857 posts)They said that she killed all those men in Benghazi and that she was a baby killer wanting to allow women to start getting abortions the day before their babies are born. One woman literally did not believe that late term abortions were already legal. I could not reason with them. It was like talking to children about the income tax code.
JI7
(89,283 posts)Anything negative about trump just had to include something negative about her.
Even the debates were about his trump did well the first 15 seconds or some stupid shit like that.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)Kuhl
(30 posts)Seems low frankly...
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)ffr
(22,676 posts)for
them.
Raiders of the U.S. Treasury and America's natural resources.
We are so fcuked!!!
Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)the "liberal media" did the same thing to her they did to Gore in 2000.
kimbutgar
(21,240 posts)I can't believe how they made a great stateswoman so toxic. Expect this going forward for any Democratic candidates. President Obama might be the last democratic president in my lifetime at my age 60. Sadly.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)So they had to get Hillary's numbers down to where Trump's were so it would be a "fair" battle. Yes, every day, the media would talk about how much people disliked Hillary and how 56% could not trust her. They accomplished their goal.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)kentuck
(111,111 posts)Republicans always believe it is the "liberal media", but it's not.
Always skeptical of Democratic ideas but accepts "right-wing narratives" as the norm.
LAS14
(13,790 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)It was fucking rigged for Rump.
Initech
(100,129 posts)They stole it through an act of treason that involved Russian hacking, and FBI director and Senate Majority Leader who hated Hillary Clinton and aided and abetted this act of treason. They must be punished and prosecuted for this.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)mathematic
(1,440 posts)All they had to do was suggest she was in the pocket of various business lobbies.
Too bad nobody had the spine to directly ask these liars point blank to come up with an example.
SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)Of course, he could not answer it, he just repeated getting money from Wall Street will affect her.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/04/14/debate-bernie-sanders-no-example-donations-affecting-hillary-clintons/amp
So it wasnt just the media that tanked her likeability, Sanders had a big hand in it:
kcr
(15,321 posts)SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)Response to kcr (Reply #49)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Kuhl
(30 posts)uponit7771
(90,370 posts)Kuhl
(30 posts)Like when he gave her a pass on emails at the debate.
He certainly didn't go as hard as he could have.
SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)He did go as hard as he could have. And I am one of those who believe that line about "I'm so sick of hearing about the damn emails" line didn't come off quite like Bernie intended it to. I dont think he meant to take that argument off the table against Hillary, but the way Hillary and the audience reacted, it kinda forced his hand.
He certainly kept harping on another non-issue, the "Wall Street transcipts," yet he himself never produced but one truncated tax return.
Meanwhile, Hillary ran no negative ads against Bernie that I saw. And there was a ton of negative stuff on Bernie she could have brought out. She just didn't bring it up. She just talked about the issues, like his votes against the Brady Bill.
Kuhl
(30 posts)I'm genuinely curious...
SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)I think he meant exactly what he said, that he was sick of hearing about it. He later confirmed that he thought Hillary's emails were a "very serious issue," and worse, that "there was a legal process taking place." And then in the same breath, had the gall to say he was not politicizing it and that I am not going to attack Hillary Clinton, The American people will have to make that judgment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-emails_us_56ae254be4b077d4fe8e7023
Thus he legitimized the GOP talking points on the Clinton emails that Hillary broke the law by having a private server and that there was a criminal investigation of Hillary taking place because of it, neither of which were true.
I believe he was trying to say at that debate what many of his supporters said, that her emails and other "scandals" were Clinton baggage that they were sick of, and was one of the reasons they did not support Hillary. I think that Bernie started to say that, but only got out the "sick of" part before he was cut off by the audience applause and Hillary saying "I agree" and shaking his hand. He knew he would have been a heel at that point to finish his thought and say "but the emails are a very serious issue." He did finish his thought later, as that Huffpo link shows.
Kuhl
(30 posts)SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)What about Hillary's attacks on Bernie? If had had won the nomination but lost the general, would it be Hillary's fault?
We can't have a democracy without debate. The idea that Bernie shouldn't have criticized Hillary during the primaries is absurd.
JHan
(10,173 posts)killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)they expect something in return. Corporations typically aren't philanthropists unless there is something for them to gain from it.
That what Clinton and the Clinton foundation did wasn't anything out of the ordinary or egregious doesn't really help much.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)since about, 2008. She gave speeches to them and was secretive about content, anyway. Unforced error that opened her up to be smeared as corrupt from the beginning. Right about the people became more aware of Clinton wealth, she talked about being dead broke upon leaving the WH, and the aligned herself with what many people see as corruption. Then came the discovery of more secretive actions.
She made it easy for them.
Response to Cattledog (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
GP6971
(31,248 posts)Welcome to DU!
Response to GP6971 (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
GP6971
(31,248 posts)She's the former first lady or Arkansas, the US, US Senator and US Sec of State. that's not being vetted?
DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)Most people have no idea what was in those emails.
aggiesal
(8,943 posts)You're saying the contents of Hillary's email made her look bad, and
that she wasn't vetted?
You're not going to last long here.
SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The more people thought she might run for office again, the worse her numbers got.
The truth is that she was always a terrible choice as a nominee and anyone on this site during the primaries saw thousands of posts spelling that out very clearly. Why reality was rejected for the pipe dream of an electable Hillary I will never know.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Your best bet is to brow beat the millions who chose her in the primaries over her opponent.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The media was actually helping Hillary, not hurting her.
Pointing out that people made a bad choice is not brow beating. It is constructive criticism with the hopes that the mistake will not be repeated.
P.S. $64.3 million was donated to Hillary and her Super PACs by big banks. Saying that it was the base that supported her seems misleading.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I am happy with that. You, I assume, supported Sanders - and that's fine.
I think Hillary would have made a marvelous president and she was a decent candidate facing the most trying odds of any candidate in a presidential election in an incumbent year.
Also , Hillary has consistently gotten negative coverage over the years. She was dragged to the level of the Trump so badly, she was viewed as "lesser of two evils" - an unfair characterization. She was vastly superior to Trump by every metric.
If your bone of contention is that some big banks donated to her campaign, that is nothing new - big donors have existed in our party for decades.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Care to back up that statement?
My bone of contention is that Hillary was supported by big money and political insiders far more than the base. Your statement about the base supporting her seems to be in error.
Hillary did not get negative coverage. Only her hero worshiping devotees think so.
Remember that big story about her flip flop on ethanol subsidies? You know... Seventeen votes in the Senate one way then switching positions in Iowa during the primary.
Remember that one? Neither does anyone else.. because it was never covered.
How about her evolution on marriage equality? She called marriage a "Sacred" bond between a man and a woman, then evolved on that stance after polls had marriage equality approval well above 50%.
Guess what. Sacred is the correct word when referring to the Sacrament of Marriage but it has no place in a discussion about civil marriage. The media just let her slide on that one. No need to explain that flip.
Yes, there were some negative stories about her because she was a terrible candidate. Over all, the media went easy on her.
She wasn't dragged down to Trump's level. When the entire country's positions are taken into account, she was already there. Yes, I voted for her because she would have been the lesser of two evils, and yes it is a fair comparison.
If you look at her record, she has gotten a lot of things wrong the first time and then taken way too long to figure out she was wrong. It is very possible she would have been a terrible President. We will never know.
P.S. Sorry if this breaks the "Hillary Is Perfect" Rule (thinly disguised as the "No Bashing Democrats" Rule) but the discussion turned into a debate about Hillary as a nominee. I see no other way to address this other than to point out her weak points. Hide it if you must, but the truth will still exist, even if this post doesn't.
JHan
(10,173 posts)You know it's really interesting this: I accepted that you supported Sanders, without taking you for task for it - because it is water under the bridge and I do not care but of course you have to take me to task for my support of Hillary. So here we go *SIGH*
"My bone of contention is that Hillary was supported by big money and political insiders far more than the base. Your statement about the base supporting her seems to be in error. " -
The numbers don't lie- she won the popular vote and Sanders remained competitive because of caucuses.
"Remember that big story about her flip flop on ethanol subsidies? You know... Seventeen votes in the Senate one way then switching positions in Iowa during the primary.
Remember that one? Neither does anyone else.. because it was never covered.
How about her evolution on marriage equality? She called marriage a "Sacred" bond between a man and a woman, then evolved on that stance after polls had marriage equality approval well above 50%. "
Stick a pin in it about politicians shifting their views on issues. No really. Stop. And Obama flipflopped as much as Clinton on gay marriage. This is from however long ago, how far are you going to go to hunt for inconsistencies in a politician's stance on issues?
And spare me the diatribe about ethanol subsidies - which are far from simplistic.
And no, I do not think Hillary is perfect
SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)If you look at when that line took a sharp tick downward, it was when the email story came out and Sanders entered the race (April 2015) and started bashing her.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Yes, already in free fall.
Her continued decline was simply an extension of the pattern
SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I don't think that really hurt her much.
Having the FBI investigate her was different. That hurt.
Was the media supposed to ignore that???
SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2016, 04:09 AM - Edit history (1)
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)... normal
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Your bias certainly forces you to choose language creatively, regardless of its accuracy.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)Seems she was at 58% Aug of 2014 when there were rumors she would run, and when she officially announced her run she was hovering around 50%
http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/
Afterwards, the republicans intensified their Benghazi BS.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Which is entirely expected: approval numbers drop when people run for office, and also the GOP had already been attacking her in anticipation of her run.
What really turned her numbers down were the media and a dishonest negative campaign from Bernie Sanders.
NBachers
(17,170 posts)I already know what happened. I already know how it happened. My physical, mental, and emotional health are already at too low a point to have it thrown at me in detail like this. I'm living the nightmare every day, and still trying to make my life go.
LAS14
(13,790 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to manufacture Clinton hatred. There was plenty of it one white wingers and even right here. We blame the media sometimes when the culprits are others.
still_one
(92,492 posts)bystander "just reporting the facts, you decide". They actively fostered and exploited it.
I cannot tell you how many times the talking heads would characterize Hillary as "shrill, angry, and never smiles"
The interview with Matt Lauer was a perfect example of the media's double standard:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/politics/matt-lauer-forum.html
There are a lot of examples like that, but perhaps the most fatal one was when MSNBC was the first network to report that the "FBI had reopened the email investigation". That was NOT a true statement. Immediately after MSNBC reported that, they then paraded every right wing politician across the television screen, propagating that LIE. Within in an hour CNN and other outlets were reporting the same falsehood.
A few days later, Bret Baier from fox news reported that, "according to his sources in the FBI, an indictment was pending against the Clinton Foundation". That was a LIE, and it was picked up by other news outlets. Two days later, Bret Baier apologized saying his information was incorrect, and he should not had reported that, but the damage was done. In fact, fox news continued to repeat that lie, along with the trump campaign.
There are so many examples of the media being a willing partner in exploiting the Clinton hate, but it even went beyond that. The media conveyed the normalization of that hate, along with racism and anti-Semitism.
One of the most outrageous was when CNN debated for a few minutes the question, "are Jews really human?":
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/21/cnn-reaches-debating-trump-admit-jews-people.html
The media did NOT treat the candidates by the same standards. A Harvard study confirmed that:
https://www.good.is/articles/hillary-clinton-negative-press
The Bill Moyers article goes into depth about this:
http://billmoyers.com/story/last-night-3/
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)We cannot know at this time what would have happened, but the emails and the "untrustworthy" and "crooked" memes received massive coverage and were inserted into nearly every story.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)oasis
(49,455 posts)Joe and Mika top the list.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)bashing Hillary-- how many critical articles did we see in Salon, Truthdig, Consortium News, Common Dreams, etc where her record was smeared endlessly.
Cha
(297,935 posts)"The fact is that Hillary Clinton wasnt unpopular when she announced her decision to run in April 2015. If you look at the Gallup survey in March of last year, 50 percent of Americans had a favorable impression of Clinton, only 39 percent an unfavorable one. So there was clearly no deep reservoir of Clinton hatred among the general public at the time. On the contrary: Americans liked her; they liked her quite a bit.
Already by June, however, her favorability had not only taken a hit. It had plummeted. By July, according to Gallup, her favorability hit an all-time low with only 38 percent positively and 57 percent viewing her negatively putting her 19 points underwater."
http://billmoyers.com/story/last-night-3/
Thank you, Cattledog
StevieM
(10,500 posts)It was written before the election. In other words, before the media decided to settle on a ridiculous version of events where HRC lost because she didn't have an economic message or try to focus on pocket book issues.
Cha
(297,935 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)betsuni
(25,764 posts)Kuhl
(30 posts)It's reasonable to expect change one way or another once folks starting seeing her and thinking about her as a possible President.
Significant change itself is not indicative of shenanigans.
MountCleaners
(1,148 posts)...and I'm a leftist Democrat, was never a huge fan of her. However, I never understood what was so TERRIBLE about her, either. I never found her unpersonable. Just seemed like her detractors were imagining things.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)Salon, AlterNet, commondreams, and the other usual suspects were feeding the liberal Hillary haters daily even after the primary ended. When they finally started to panic and post a few positive articles the comments were brutal.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)Not by a long shot. I read DU daily. I read other websites, too. It wasn't just the media. Truly.
inwiththenew
(972 posts)By setting up that email server and the paid speeches. Note I said political and not legal.
She had to know that she was going to run again and being a veteran of the process she had to know that an opponent could make hay out of the these issues.
I think she must have made the calculation that these would be a non-issue or could be easily explained away. I think the email server especially really eroded the opinion of her. It could be argued that the media would have come up with something else but they didn't have to.
We know that the emails contained nothing from a legal/ethical standpoint but politically they were killer.
oasis
(49,455 posts)Oh well.
ismnotwasm
(42,022 posts)Although I do appreciate the article
mulsh
(2,959 posts)Hayes deserve kudos for including these notions consistently in their coverage. Usually after devoting their first 20 minutes to Trump or as I eventually thought of it: gratis Trump PR.
But really every single story I read about Hillary Clinton in every source seemed to require some version of those damning phrases. Why it is as if they were essential instructions in the 2016 political style books for all "news" outlets.
Of course those phrases are icing on the cake of nearly 40 years of covering Clinton in as negative a manner as journalist's juvenile minds could concoct.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)How could so many not have seen it? How did so many miss the hatred from the right toward her over the years? The right didn't even scratch the surface of the scandals real and manufactured that they could have thrown at her.
spanone
(135,921 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)talk of her not being likeable. Remember the "you're likeable enough" line Obama used.
It seemed to be an issue for her back then too.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Not hated.