The all-out attack the media is carrying out with regard to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton is beginning to make them look bad. It appears the public is siding with Hillary. Big players like the New York Times and Washington Post have apparently made it their goal to publish everything negative they can about Hillary Clinton without regard to whether it is the true, partially true or totally false. It's apparent they are pushing reporters to write about anything 'Hillary' and not giving them time to vet their stories.
First was the supposed "email scandal" which thus far has proven not very scandalous. Then the ""Clinton Cash" book, which the NY Times, Washington Post and FOX news had exclusive agreements to get advance copies of, whose publisher is now rewriting parts of it because they were shown to be lies. Those lies weren't discovered by the outlets that got exclusives for the book.
More than a year ago the NY Times assigned Amy Chozick to cover Hillary fulltime. Until now her columns have been heavy on fluff, a recent example Another Busy Day for Bill Clinton, the Non-campaigning Campaigner. The Washington Post has published attack editorials and combined them with vitriolic columns so often one could perceive the entire paper is anti-Hillary. Just last week there was a front page headline 'Clinton e-mails related to Benghazi are released'. If one read the column you found out there was nothing in them and they "provide little fuel for a Republican investigation of her actions preceding the September 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi and an alleged administration cover-up in their aftermath." Only on page eleven where the column continued is the headline "No major openings for critics are apparent in messages." The same day Karen Tumulty writes Clinton's management style under scrutiny attacking her for listening to a wide range of people outside the 'organization chart' and passing their comments on to people within the organization. Tumulty concedes, "This is not a bad thing in itself" and provides no information showing where it would be. The next day Ruth Marcus has another attack column Clinton's unseemly speechifying in which she basically castigates Hillary for not taking her advice. Marcus does say, "Let me repeat, I am a fan of Hillary Clinton". With fans like Marcus who needs enemies. Marcus's recent diatribes against Clinton, and there have been many, needn't have happened if she didn't continue 'columnifying' so she can make money.
When the media has a day without something to attack they go after Hillary for not talking to them. The Washington Post spews Hillary Clinton hasn't answered a question from the media in twenty days, and from the NY Times Hillary Clinton, Acutely Aware of Pitfalls, Avoids Press on Campaign Trail.
Despite these attacks Hillary is maintaining her appeal to voters because she is focused on listening to, and talking with people one-on-one in Iowa, New Hampshire and every corner of the nation. She is presenting her platform which is resonating with people. They don't particularly care the nattering class who talk to each other as they commute on Amtrak between New York and Washington isn't happy. They are much more concerned with the issues impacting their daily lives and are listening to and responding positively to Hillary when she says she is for; raising the minimum wage, providing paid maternity and paternity leave, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, working to develop policies that will impact climate change, reducing student debt, and saying her litmus test for appointing Supreme Court Justices is they vote to overturn Citizens United and take some of the obscene amounts of money out of political campaigns. Her campaign and the platform she is outlining are resonating with women, minorities, young people and families because they know she has spent a lifetime fighting for them.
There are 14 months before the Democratic Party will officially choose their nominee. Then a four month general election leading to the nation choosing our 45th President. During that time the attacks on Hillary will continue, as they have for decades, and it can only be hoped the media will take the time to research and vet them before automatically publishing them as truths. In these days of twenty-four hour news cycles and competition for readers and viewers that is most likely too much to wish for but one can always hope fairness will prevail.
The media has a responsibility to inform. That includes writing and reporting on the issues surrounding each candidate and the policies and platforms proposed by them. They will and should write and talk about both the good and the bad. But they have an overriding responsibility to the public to get it right.