Hillary Clinton and the Media

by William Skink

I love not having cable news, but when I am around a tv with cable, I do like to check in to see how things are being framed. Such was the case on Monday as I sat in a hospital room with my new little bundle of joy sleeping soundly in my arms, blissfully unaware the world she was just born into is going off the rails.

On MSNBC, Chris Hayes had Susan Sarandon on doing the surrogate thing for her candidate, Bernie. Sarandon is obviously very informed about the terrible candidate Hillary Clinton would be, and made her case for backing Bernie Sanders. When Hayes asked if she would support Hillary if she got the nomination, Sarandon shocked Hayes by not immediately saying yes:

The actress and activist has been a powerful surrogate for Sanders on the campaign trail over the past few months, and during an interview with MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes Monday night, she said she doesn’t know if she can bring herself to vote for Clinton if it comes down to it.

“I think, in certain quarters, there’s growing concern that the folks that are into Bernie Sanders have come to despise Hillary Clinton or reject Hillary Clinton and that should she be the nominee, which is as yet undetermined, they will walk away,” Hayes said.

“That’s a legitimate concern,” Sarandon replied. “Because they’re very passionate and principled.”

“But isn’t that crazy?” the host asked. “If you believe in what he believes in?”
“Yeah but she doesn’t,” Sarandon shot back. “She accepted money for all of those people. She doesn’t even want to fight for a $15 minimum wage. So these are people that have not come out before. So why would we think they’re going to come out now for her, you know?”

Pushing for a more personal response, Hayes pressed Sarandon on whether or not she would vote for Hillary and this is what Sarandon had to say:

As they continued to discuss the issue, Hayes pressed Sarandon to see the election as potentially a choice between Clinton and Trump, arguing that Sanders himself would “probably” urge his supporters to vote for her.

“I think Bernie would probably encourage people, because he doesn’t have any ego in this thing,” Sarandon told him. “But I think a lot of people are, ‘Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to [vote for Clinton].’”

“How about you personally?” Hayes asked.

“I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens,” Sarandon said.

That bit of honesty prompted Hayes to stop in his tracks. “Really?” he asked incredulously.

“Really,” Sarandon said, adding that “some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.” Asked if she thinks that’s “dangerous,” she replied, “It’s dangerous to think that we can continue the way we are with the militarized police force, with privatized prisons, with the death penalty, with the low minimum wage, threats to women’s rights and think you can’t do something huge to turn that around.”

After the Sarandon segment, Chris Hayes had Dan Savage on, and Savage made a point before going into his schtick to respond to Susan Sarandon with the lesser-evil trope, emphasizing that Trump would not trigger the revolution.

By now Sanders supporters know corporate media is desperately trying to bury Bernie Sanders. If you want to better understand why, this Zerohedge post connects Bernie’s consistent message to enact campaign finance reform with the corporate concern of losing millions in easy ad revenue, a revenue stream traditional media very much needs. From the link:

When a Super-PAC raises $100 million for Hillary, Jeb, et al., where does 90% of that money go? To the Corporate Media. Corporate Media gorges on political media buys every two years, and increasingly depends on this feasting on Super-PAC money for its outsized profits.

As more and more advertising dollars flow to digital media (online search, Facebook, etc.), traditional media dominated by a handful of corporate giants needs the massive influx of campaign dollars to offset its stagnating revenue model.

My source notes that there are rarely any discounts for campaign media buys–the super-PACs and candidate’s campaigns pay full pop, and typically pay in cash: no 90 days receivables for campaigns.

Political campaign buys are almost pure profit, as there is minimal sales effort required and the campaign/super-PAC is paying full freight.

Real campaign finance reform would gut Corporate Media’s profits. No wonder the Corporate Media downplays Sanders’ campaign, his personal integrity and his chances to become president.

And why do we have a deplorable media landscape?  Because Bill Clinton signed into law the telecommunication act of 1996, leading to two decades of media consolidation.

The link above goes to a Truthout piece, a news source one would hope would be less inclined to undermine its credibility in order to protect Hillary Clinton from bad press. Unfortunately journalist John Pilger dashes those hopes in a piece that calls out Truthout for trying to editorially soften his criticism of Hillary:

On March 23, CounterPunch published my article, “A World War has Begun: Break the Silence”. As has been my practice for years, I then syndicated the piece across an international network, including Truthout.com, the liberal American website. Truthout publishes some important journalism, not least Dahr Jamail’s outstanding corporate exposes.

Truthout rejected the piece because, said an editor, it had appeared on CounterPunch and had broken “guidelines”. I replied that this had never been a problem over many years and I knew of no guidelines.

My recalcitrance was then given another meaning. The article was reprieved provided I submitted to a “review” and agreed to changes and deletions made by Truthout’s “editorial committee”. The result was the softening and censoring of my criticism of Hillary Clinton, and the distancing of her from Trump.

Pilger then includes the portion of his previous piece that the editorial committee wanted excised from Pilger’s article. The intent was obvious:

The “editorial committee” clearly wanted me to water down my argument that Clinton represented a proven extreme danger to the world. Like all censorship, this was unacceptable. Maya Schenwar, who runs Truthout, wrote to me that my unwillingness to submit my work to a “process of revision” meant she had to take it off her “publication docket”. Such is the gatekeeper’s way with words.

If Clinton formally secures the nomination it will be interesting to see how the corporate media reports on the growing email scandal. Will attention be paid to Clinton’s poor judgement, prioritizing the convenience of using her personal Blackberry over little pesky nuisances like following the law and national security? Zerohedge will sure be paying attention:

At this point it’s abundantly clear that Clinton would have been far better off telling the truth from the very beginning and the fact that incremental information continues to surface certainly seems to suggest that the former First Lady fully intends to admit only what someone else can prove. That doesn’t exactly inspire much trust.

“So now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government emails,” Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch said in a statement. “We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009 — because she didn’t want Americans to know about her February 13, 2009, email that shows that she knew her Blackberry and email use was not secure.”

While we would note that there’s a bit of confirmation bias going on there (i.e. Fitton said the messages he uncovered earlier this month were proof that Clinton knew her BlackBerry wasn’t secure and now he says the new e-mails are proof that that proof was indeed proof), Fitton is probably right. Clinton most likely would rather not have been forced to admit that she and Cheryl Mills essentially tried to browbeat the NSA into figuring out how to accommodate the BlackBerrys because the very fact that they had the conversation in the first place suggests Clinton and Mills knew the devices weren’t secure.

Read the whole article for full context, but that little tidbit right there is pretty damning. But what’s lying under oath for a serial liar like Clinton? And with the looming specter of a Trump candidacy, who really believes Democrats will do anything other than rally behind this terminally flawed candidate?

I’m not sure if there has ever been a presidential candidate running for the White House while being investigated by the FBI, but if Clinton is the first, it’s not the first her campaign wants anyone to think too much about. The duel factors of having a vagina and running against the anti-Christ are the main considerations Clinton sycophants will be emphasizing once Bernie is taken care of one way or another.

About Travis Mateer

I'm an artist and citizen journalist living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Hillary Clinton and the Media

  1. JC says:

    As the head of the FBI, James Comey is a registered republican (and came out of Bush’s DOJ) and would like nothing more than to spike Clinton’s nomination. Otherwise the investigation would have just withered away months ago. I think that he’ll wrap up his investigation in time to recommend to Loretta Lynch that the DOJ indict her before the convention.

    Then what’s a sheep dog to do when the shepherd disappears?

    • Bob Williams says:

      Time for the GOP Establishment to dump Trump. Don’t go to all the work to mar and diminish HRC, then hand the Election to an outlier! (In Convention a week before the Demo Coinvention)

      Maybe also why J.Kasich of Ohio thinks the polls are right and that he would handily defeat Clinton.

      But oh what irony, if Clinton fell under DOJ Disclosure Order, or worse, and that handed the 2016 Election to Senator Sanders, half a dozen non-Republican Senators and upped the odds of Montana Electing a real Representative to Congress. Not a toadie for Coal and Monsanto.

    • Steve W says:

      The only reason there is an on-going investigation is someone with enough power wants to investigate, so I assume you are correct JC.

      However, I also expect we may see an underling take the hit for Clinton as is often her want, and as was the case with Libby, and Cheney. But it will hurt Clinton nonetheless and will further undermine her increasingly fragile message of competence and experience by instead highlighting incompetence and bad experience. “Doh!”

      Both cases are about the political manipulation of national security and about political opponents attempting to exploit those manipulations.

      And people wonder why Bernie’s anti-corruption message is resonant.

      Now that Hillary has abandoned WI to Bernie and is pumping everything into NY as her new firewall, Bernie has the mo. These are exciting times! First we take Milwaukie, and then we take Brooklyn.

      Congratulations on the arrival of your new daughter, Mr Skink. If I were you I’d consider doing some door knocking for your daughter and canvassing so that Bernie Sanders wins the nomination big right here in River City and Western Montana. I’m again predicting that Montana will decide the Democratic Presidential nomination, just as we did back in 2008. We will have to win really big to pull it off, bigger than Obama won by in 08. But it’s doable with enough people helping. And if you have never done canvassing it’s an education I’d recommend.

      Did anybody notice the news stories that NY and CA are going to a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage? What’s with that? Are they trying to stop Bernie by solving his issues? Well OK then. 🙂

  2. The real purpose of the Democratic Party is to protect Republicans from competition and prevent a scone party form rising up. Democratic leadership is nothing but cloaked Republicans.

    Drowning out all the noise, ignoring news, pundits and comedians, just listening to his words, Trump ain’t that bad. But he is competition for the Republicans, it appears. No doubt they would rather see Hillary elected than Trump. She would make a better Republican president.

  3. It’s imperative for the establishment to dump Trump so Hillary has a chance in the general. If it’s her and Trump, as Susan Sarandon says, many will go over to Trump before voting for that vile woman and all decades of baggage she brings along with her.

    I wish I would have had my site in 1996 so I could report on all the terrible policies Clinton pushed through. And what is going on now, with Obama? We don’t hear much about the new laws being created, mainly because the campaign trail is so distracting. The corporate media likes it that way. I’m surprised we had so much on TPP last summer.

    Anyways, I’ve said many times before and told the National Dems in the survey they sent me – I will not be voting for Hillary. I don’t feel the need to ‘go over to her.’

    What a silly way to put it, come on over or go over to someone. Screw that!

    I’ll be going third party or Trump and to hell with Clinton and her oligarchic buddies, the hanger’s-on that cling to her as well.

  4. Big Swede says:

    100 new refugees with more coming in the following years, I’d worry about my daughter too.

    • JC says:

      I worry more about the 100 new athletes coming to the U of M next year, and the danger they pose to my daughter.

      • Big Swede says:

        Tell her to hang out in the library.

      • Bob Williams says:

        JC, that’s a great response!
        In a flash, reminds me of reality details in the bigger picture!

        • Bob Williams says:

          Referring to JC 3/30, 9:07 PM Post: I got a hell of a good kick
          from that response, so Posted to reply in appreciation to JC.

        • JC says:

          Thanks Bob. The refugee scare is just another scam to get us all to forget about how dire things are in the homeland… Keep us in a state of fear and agitation so that we don’t rebel against the MIC.

        • You make a very good point about the fear. I personally think that fear is unfounded. Instead of looking at facts, however, people just gobble up what the government and the media feed ’em.

          Here are some other things we might want to fear.

          Each day in America this number of people die for these reasons:

          1,674 die each day in America from heart disease;
          1,602 die from Cancer;
          408 die from Chronic lower respiratory disease;
          357 die from Accidents;
          353 die from Strokes;
          232 die from Alzheimer’s;
          207 die from Diabetes;
          156 die from the F.u/pneumonia;
          129 die from Nephritis (I don’t even know what that is);
          112 die from Suicide;
          89 die in Car Accidents;
          8 die from food illnesses.

          5,331 Americans die each day from those.

          What should we really be afraid of?

        • JC says:

          Add to your list that every day 36 people are shot and murdered in this country with guns. And another 300 or so are injured. Daily.

        • 36 gun deaths is pretty low. Sure, that’s preventable…but so is cancer and strokes and all the rest of it.

          It’s our healthcare and food system that’s killing most of us.

        • JC says:

          People have to die, one way or the other, nobody’s immortal. Once upon a time people died of “old age.” Now we’ve broken down “old age” into a gazillion diseases and our Lazarus complex drives us to try and eliminate all of them.

          But back to my original point: how many of those 36 gun-related deaths per day are the result of just regular Americans offing their compatriots? The vast majority.

        • Should something be done about that, and if so, what?

        • JC says:

          Depends on what you think the problem is, what we would do.

        • petetalbot says:

          I’ve reversed my stand on guns. Everyone should pack heat all the time, everywhere. And drink more alcohol. It’s time to thin the herd.

        • Big Swede says:

          They’re being “thinned” in Chicago, Pete.

        • JC says:

          They’ll be thinned even more in Cleveland.

        • petetalbot says:

          They’re being “thinned” everywhere in the good ol’ USA, Swede.
          Re: my most recent comment — must be the week I’m spending in the Magic City that brought out my less-than-sensitive side.

  5. steve kelly says:

    Bumper sticker: “Warmongering Women for Hillary.”

  6. In regard to the 36 gun deaths a day, perhaps looking at the numbers and figuring out what each is attributed to would be a good place to start.

    For instance, are 10 coming from gang/drug violence? Maybe 5 are from domestic violence situations. Perhaps 5 are police-related.

    I dunno, but if you can find trends you can find the underlying problems that are causing that gun violence to occur.

  7. Big Swede says:

    In regards to my “fear mongering” why is it that progressives/liberals never look at the big picture? Sure, 100 refugees may not create any problems nor would 500. But Europe has taken millions and I’m sure now they’ve wished they hadn’t taken any to begin with.

  8. Bob Williams says:

    Anybody “here” find “their” mind changed,
    while hearing DJT say nobody loved women more than HE.
    But Criminal Charges must be filed against some women, and earmark them for JAIL,
    if they have, with or without a partner/mate,
    selected family planning that lead to an abortion procedure.

    (or had you thoroughly dismissed DJT when he said he as Pres
    would turn to the Heritage Foundation,
    for suggested candidates for the Supreme Court of the USA?
    Or when DJT said the OT and the NT were his favorite “book”?)

  9. Bob Williams says:

    Me. Me. Me. My oh me!
    Which candidates are better for the country of progeny?

  10. Eric says:

    Congrats Dad – my girls are grown now but there’s nothing better than a new baby.

    If I could go back and have a Ground Hogs Day – like Bill Murray – it wouldn’t be a day like my 16th Birthday – my first kiss in a ’65 Ford, it would be a day when my kids were small.

    Take time and rock your baby – because Babies don’t keep.

Leave a Reply