proved they have no public interest at heart at all.

Just read over what he and others were warning about, it's quite enlightening for those of us living in our happy bubbles:
http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

When people tired to warn against complacency (as I did here), you can see how some people responded:
"Don't worry Pluvious..." (so sad)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017409577

If anyone, I blame the DNC, which I fear to say anymore about, since last few times I tried I was censored.

And yes, I'm still a bit bitter.

Maybe getting GropperFuhrer as our new Leader of the Free World will be the wake up hand-across-the-eyes we needed to turn off the goddamned xbox in 2018, get off the couch, and go vote out the supporting Congress Critters whom are trying to complete our Country's conversion to a fascist paradise.

I'll never forget Matthews chuckling away, just adoring the Orange One.

Even way back when Katie Tur first said tRlump was picking on her I thought he (Matthews) would jump to her defense, always portraying himself as a gentlemanly/big brother type.

Not a peep out of him just sat there with no reaction. One of the moments from this whole debacle I will never forget.

Even Comey's letter wouldn't have had such an impact if media didn't run with it the way they did.

Other factors influenced the outcome but when you treat one candidate like a celebrity guest (vs a candidate for POTUS) and provide millions of dollars of free airtime you are at very least complicit.

It wasn't .

As much as I despise Trump, and particularly the ignorant white wingers who supported him, I'm not sure the media is suppose to destroy anyone.

Yet they went on and on about emails to the point of barely covering actual issues.

Look on DU and see how many email threads and accusations were right her during primaries, notwithstanding Sander's "enough with the email."

While we might have liked every Trump story to have been introduced, "Donald Trump, a racist, POS', held a rally today inciting 20000 ignorant white wingers," that's really not how it should work with large media outlets. Almost every newspaper endorsed Clinton. Even some FOX news folks trashed Trump.

Do you know and trust them?

It always seemed like a hyped up non-story to me.

Before DU got hacked, there were people "coming out" claiming they will go vote for Jill Stein and so on.

I had a problem with HRC's emails, the possibility of shady dealings between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, her connections to Wall Street & corporate big wigs, her support for corporate prisons to incarcerate the "super-predators", her calling the shots at the DNC to the detriment of her primary opponents, the presumption that it was simply "her turn" and lesser Democrats should step aside... I am what became labeled as a "Bernie Bro", and was attacked by many as being everything that I know I am not ("misogynist" and "closet republican" come to mind...). And yet, despite being anti-corporate and wanting to push for Jill Stein, I knew that living in a swing state made my vote far more important than it might have been had I lived in CA or NY. So I told my conscience to go to hell and voted for a candidate that I truly did not support (HRC) because I was concerned that the Orange Menace might actually win my state...

Well, Orange Julius Caesar did win my state, and won the election thanks to our antiquated Electoral College. And I don't feel good bout it. I don't believe I did anything to harm Hillary's chances, I just supported someone else in the primaries. And some of my worst fears/concerns have been validated (the DWS emails regarding taking Bernie out, Donna Brazile providing Team Hillary with debate questions before the fact, etc.). That doesn't mean I'm glad Hillary lost, because in fact I'm pissed off like millions of other people. But I do still hold firm in my belief that Bernie could have beaten Trump, and beaten him badly. It's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it, right or wrong.

If any good can come from this, I hope it is that we need to ensure that all voices are given an equal chance to be heard during the primaries, and that the DNC doesn't put their thumb on the scale in favor of one candidate over others. I hope that progressive voices speak up and speak out, and steer the party in a more progressive, less corporate direction. All of those Trump voters who had voted Obam in 2008 & 2012 will looking for real change in 4 years, and either they will vote Democrat or stay home. We need to give them a reason - and hope - to come to the polls and vote Democrat in 2020. Who it will be, I don't know. I want new blood, and I want diverse choices - gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, young/old, - and I want progressive policies to be presented & implemented.

I've held my tongue for months in accordance with DU guidelines. I've been a team player. But in my heart, I knew I was right all along. I wish I wasn't (WRT electability of HRC vs Trump). But I'm willing to work for a better tomorrow. I hope everyone else is.

I do find some of your concerns about candidate Clinton troubling in that they're not entirely accurate. They are part of the standard anti-Clinton script (left wing edition) that Gene Lyons, Joe Conason, and Bob Somerby have been writing about for years. When you have time and the inclination, you might want to check out the following links.

And once again, thank you for making a difficult decision and using your vote as a tool for the better good. I admire your ethical outlook.


http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/04/a-billion-dollar-plus-industry-clinton-may-sentence-to-death.html

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/27/investing/prison-stocks-hillary-clinton-debate-corrections-corporation-america-geo-group/

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

There's no shortage of info out there, just need to glean what I can from it.

I guess the one thing that upsets me is the whole unnecessary server deal. If HRC just used the State Dept server, the whole fiasco never happens, and she wins. I still don't care for her coziness with Wall Street and corporatists, but she's practically the second coming of FDR compared to that orange bastard.

Going to be a busy 4 years beating back the GOP attempts to crush civil rights & destroy the environment...

That they let them stand. chuck Todd suggested the public should fact check what they report- instead of them Fact checking! They put his bold lies in the headlines time and time again and did not debunk them until the 3-4 paragraph. When enough (print ) reporters revolted they admitted they did a shit job. That was September. By October they were doing it again w the Comney story.

about the emails. Is Hillary going to be indicted (suggesting it could be any time now, and who wants the president who is going to be indicted?) And after second Comey letter came out, instead of "exonerated' headlines we got "Hillary avoids prosecution yet again" headlines.
So both Comey letters were extremely damaging, in large thanks to how media run with the story.

They could have framed everything she did so differently. First woman president. Incredible experience. In her email scandal, she was just trying to do her freaking job as SoS, which was hard. She represented and supported American exceptionalism and the American empire, which normally they love.

Presumably that will continue even after he becomes president.

"Trump, in particular, seems to have been a magnet for attracting viewers. The first Republican debate, in August of 2015, carried by Fox, attracted 24 million viewers, the most ever for an event during the primaries. That was bookended by the first presidential debate featuring Trump and Clinton in late September, which attracted 84 million viewers, a record audience for such an event."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/one-billion-dollars-profit-yes-the-campaign-has-been-a-gusher-for-cnn/2016/10/27/1fc879e6-9c6f-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html

Kind of like they were stringing him along so he could keep doing crazy shit for us to keep getting perpetually annoyed at. But who really wants to see him at this point?

The profit motive really needs to be taken out of news... among other things that really need to be fixed.

They CAN'T keep toying with us on such a huge issue.

Trump was extremely profitable for cable news and he got lots of free advertising other candidates did not get. According to the article, just during the primaries Trump got an estimated 2 billion dollars of free airtime.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2016/11/10/donald-trump-may-hate-the-media-but-they-won-with-him/#611c8913a810

Do you really think anyone voted for Trump because of the emails? It might have been ano excuse for ignorant white wing racists to use, but if it had not have been that it would have been the Foundation (which even in one's wildest imagination is not as bad as Trump's Foundation and criminal actions). And fact is, those things were used as an attempt to destroy Clinton right here during primaries. The media did not propelled Trump to victory, vicious white wingers voting did. Almost everything Trump accused her of during general election was used against her during the primary.

And don't forget what Comey did too.

Latinos, KKK endorsements, etc. How the heck is that destroying Clinton, except to make white wingers happy?

and some so-called "progressives" destroyed Clinton too.

incredulous that the magnanimous Donald would not be further investigating what Tingles called "her (Hillary's) crimes".

they still suck on reagan's balls.

Just because they are corporate assholes? Or something deeper?

Do they not care about the Russian influence?

Another little, subtle trick they would use was to cut to a live Trump speech when he would be spewing lies and false accusations at Hillery, and then go back to the ongoing program and NEVER point out that Trump was lying through his teeth. They woul just say something to the effect of, "Trump was really going after Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania as you just saw. Brian, do you think these emails will have an effect on turnout"?
Absolute bullshit!

for ratings.

There is no other explanation. If HRC had committed any one of drumph's lies they would never have stopped covering it.

aS IT WAS SHE HAD THE FLU AND THEY MADE SUCH A BIG DEAL ABOUT THAT.

eXCUSE THE CAPS LOCK.

Media is in the business of making money. Period. Presenting the "news" is merely a device to achieve higher profits. Trump is the goose that lays golden eggs, an irresistible temptation, never mind that those eggs have already proven toxic to everyone but Trump.


.

news agencies also tend to like GOP policies.

I thought the media was very anti-Trump. Yes, he got a lot of mentions, and they followed his every word; but his ideas and statements were widely ridiculed by talking heads on all the main news channels.

And nearly every newspaper in the country endorsed Hillary over Trump.

They talked about and showed his mocking a reporter with disabilities.

That should have been enough.

They talked about him mocking McCain and other POW's.

That should have been enough.

They talked about the Pussy tapes ad nauseum.

That should have been enough.


Any of it that they did show, should have been enough. There were no Trump supporters I know of who were unaware of any of that stuff. They just didn't fucking care. There is literally nothing more that they could have hammered any harder that would have made any dent in that idiots support.

I'm not one to defend the media and I don't even think I'm actually defending them now. I'm just saying even if they did more of their job there is zero indication that Trump would have gotten any support.

As for covering Hillary's made up scandals, I also don't know anyone who was on the fence and voted for Trump because of the e-mails or Benghazi. Anyone who believed any of that bullshit even for a split second was already in the Trump camp.

I agree that Comey bears some blame though.

But I still feel like their coverage was superficial, and lacked any real depth-- partly because he gave them so many moving targets.

Just there was no sustained attack on Trump on one key issue, the way there was for Hillary. They treated her with the utmost suspicion, and had no comparable suspicion of Trump. He was treated as a harmless buffoon, instead of the real threat to democracy he is.

I agree that they hit HIllary on stupid issues. But I can't say that they didn't cover all the ridiculous stuff he did and said. They did, but there was just so fucking much of it that there was no way they would be able to get a combined, coordinated, concerted focus on all of it.

And even when they did, like say when every single news network and even entertainment shows were talking about the pussy grabbing tape......it didn't do anything to his support. Not a goddamned thing. So what makes people think that if they covered say......the Putin connection more, that it would have had any more of an impact? If anything it would probably have less of an impact since it was a much more obtuse scandal and people would just end up tuning out. I think the media did the right thing by focusing on the most dynamic and easily digestible scandals and outrageous things. But there' little evidence to say that if they focused more on other stuff (which was in most cases less damning or less easily digested or understood) that it would have had any more impact than him basically admitting to sexual assault.