Smearboating Hillary with Media Distortions

The anti-Hillaryites don’t need a swift boat or even a paddle anymore. Not when they have media propaganda and subsequent ignorance of misinformed voters on their side. Now they’ve launched an all-out smear campaign against a dedicated public servant who actually stands a chance of being the first woman ever elected President of the United States. And their smearboating tactics are working.

So don’t tell me Republicans who own most of the print and broadcast media in this country are encouraging “fair and balanced” reporting. They aren’t. In this election year especially, “fair and balanced” has gone the way of the dinosaurs — courtesy of these biased media moguls.

And yeah, I do mean BIASED.

Let me take you by the hand, gentle reader, and show you exactly what I mean by unfair and unbalanced and blatantly BIASED reporting about Hillary.

For now, let’s focus on print media.

Let’s examine all the ways a newspaper can crucify a Presidential candidate. Get ready for emotionally loaded words, misleading headlines, and slanted information. Pay close attention to how the news gets editorialized while other viewpoints never get printed in the editorial pages. Let’s take a good look-see at how wrongdoing can be insinuated and how reasonable doubt can be generated in just two editions. In other words, let’s check out the way “The Minneapolis Star Tribune” went about destroying Hillary’s character, reputation, and integrity.

But first, here’s some news about her and her job that The Strib deliberately withheld from readers. It was featured in “Swift boating Hillary — Without a Swift Boat,” and posted in The Patch on May 31, 2016. Although it’s been over 5 weeks since it first appeared, my op-ed deserves another look now that the Republican attacks against her have escalated. Here’s a partial reprint from that posting that includes some incredibly important details that went “missing:”

“Get ready for more depictions of Hillary as an evil, overbearing, power-mad bitch scoffing at labyrinthine bureaucratic record-keeping that the Federal Records Act demands. Why not? Everyone believes the worst about her anyway because everyone already believes she’s an uppity bitch who thinks she’s above man-made laws. She thinks she’s soo special, she thinks she doesn’t have to obey the same laws that we all have to follow. Just wait. We’ll get you, Hillary. We’re gonna frost your ass.

The real problem here is that this ass-frosting is operating on some time-released plan without a real timeline. By timeline, I mean a natural, expected chronology of events. Usually when someone violates a law, the law is actually on the books, and there’s also knowledge or awareness of its existence. Not in Hillary’s case.

According to news media and nearly all the Republicans on Capitol Hill, Secretary Clinton broke the law. She violated the Federal Records Act. They’re leaving out some important details, though. They’re not telling you that the Federal Records Act was passed by Congress on September 10, 2014, and signed into law by President Obama on November 26, 2014.

And when was Hillary Clinton Secretary of State? She became Secretary in February, 2009, and resigned on February 1, 2013, on the same day John Kerry became new Secretary of State. That means that Hillary left office nearly 2 years BEFORE the Federal Records Act became law.

That means that these laws she allegedly violated were literally not in existence during her 5 years of service. That means that her detractors are so determined to keep her from being elected President that they’re using laws that weren’t even around when she served as Secretary of State!That means they really ARE out to get her.

Whatever your political affiliations are, you’ll have to admit this kind of character assassination is pretty extreme…”

Whatever your political affiliations are, you’ll have to admit that depicting her as Secretary of State-gone-rogue defies common sense. There’s no way she could have devised her own complex communication system in the way her opponents have charged without any knowledge or support or approval from the government. There’s no way she could have set up such a system, either, without necessary government clearance. Could it be then that those critics fuming over her improper use of technology are themselves tech-impaired?

Possibly. What’s more likely is that these anti-Hillaryites are so entrenched in their own witch hunt that they no longer know what they’re criticizing. Not only did Hillary inquire about combining her personal and professional communications into one system, she actually got approval from the federal government to do so. The approval came in 2009 when she initially became Secretary of State.

Unfortunately for Hillary, her enemies have never let common sense, facts, or fair play stand in the way of a good political attack. These guys on Capital Hill and in news rooms are fast becoming an overzealous posse like the one from “The Ox Bow Incident.” They just can’t wait to hang her. Who cares if she didn’t break the law? Let’s get ‘er, boys!

Completely missing from this hang ‘em high GOP directive, however, is necessary information readers need in order to form their own opinions. Specifically, what’s needed here is a good working definition of “classified information.” What, exactly, makes something “classified?” And what is it about other material that makes it “non-classified?”

Does anyone really know?

Maybe…Maybe not. Shhh, it’s a secret…until we say it isn’t.

The real problem here is that government classification of classified information is a highly arbitrary, subjective ongoing process.

In other words, determining which materials are classified and which ones aren’t depends a lot on who’s doing the classifying.

So one government official might label something as “classified,” while another government official might decide that the same thing is “non-classified.” Furthermore, something that is considered “classified” today might easily be “de-classified” tomorrow. Or something that is now considered “non-classified” might someday become “classified.”

Just as there are various levels of clearance for State Department employees, there are also different levels of classification for various materials. Classified information includes not only paper but photographs, maps, motion pictures, CD’s, videotapes, microfilms, as well as databases and hard drives. TOP SECRET, SECRET, CONFIDENTIAL — sometimes a fine line exists between all these categories.

Consider this text Hillary Clinton might have sent to her husband: “Running late. Reception at FR embassy in OT. Will meet U at R’s Cafe around 8.”

Would that message be classified information?

Most people would probably say no. And yet, a hacker would be able to learn a lot about this Secretary of State’s schedule. He would know that she was delayed at the French Embassy and also know when and where she’d be having dinner with the former U.S. President. Then again, would such mundane info really be considered a threat to National Security?

So it’s highly possible that Hillary actually believed — and was correct in believing — that she’d never sent or received any classified information. Why? Because at the time, such information now in question might NOT have been considered classified.

Now that’s certainly something that voters should be considering. But that important info was conspicuously omitted in The Strib. Of course. Glen and his hack posse know that unless information is made available to readers, there’s no way for them to ever know what’s really going on. They also know that their deliberate omissions and distortions of information will unduly influence readers who will vote in the Presidential election less than 5 months from now.

Don’t take my word for it, though. Go back to The Strib’s Wednesday, July 6th edition. Take a long, hard look at how this GOP-owned rag handles and imparts information. Read, but pay attention to what you’re reading this time.

Here are some misleading and distorted pieces of information found in that edition. I’ve examined and categorized them with my *SLAM/GET REAL method. The *SLAM comes first, then is followed by GET REAL — an analysis that illuminates, then questions, the way the info was presented.

*SLAM: Deftly Misleading Headline
“No charges for Clinton, FBI decides”

GET REAL: “FBI decides?” Like, The Federal Bureau of Investigation had a real choice about filing charges? Before you charge someone with a crime, a crime first must be committed. There was no crime, so no criminal charges were filed. But forget about finding any headlines that read ‘Clinton Exonerated’ or ‘Clinton Cleared of All Charges’ in this paper.

*SLAM: Distorted Sub-headline
“Her handling of classified material in e-mail was ‘extremely careless,’ agency concluded”

GET REAL: When FBI director James Comey’s scathing criticism of Hillary was allowed take center stage, two important factors were deliberately ignored by the media. First, delivering such opinionated judgements about this case was highly inappropriate and violated FBI protocol. Second, Comey freely admits to being a Republican.

*SLAM: Information Distortion
“But the FBI director’s blistering televised statement excoriated her handling of national secrets, contradicted her past explanations about her e-mails and ensured that she will remain on the defensive about voters’ views of her trustworthiness and judgement.”

GET REAL: Is this a front-page news story or an op-ed? Make up your minds, Associated Press reporters, then report accordingly.

“National secrets?” That term brings to mind nuclear defense strategies and life-or-death spy games. But “classified information” and “national secrets” are NOT the same thing. (Read on for further clarification).

*SLAM: Deliberate Omission of Facts
“The FBI chief said that in the course of the investigation, 113 e-mails were determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.”

GET REAL: What the AP BrainTrust failed to mention was that classifying material as “classified information” can be a highly subjective and arbitrary judgement call. In fact, non-classified materials — even declassified materials — can be declared “classified” months, even years, later, just as “classified information” can be declassified years later. Such categorization depends on who’s judging what’s on hand and which personal opinions and biases are guiding these judgements. And let’s not forget, FBI chief James Comey is a Republican…

*SLAM: Another Deliberate Omission
“The scrutiny was compounded by an actual audit in May from the State Department’s inspector general that said that Clinton and her team ignored clear warnings from department officials that her e-mail set-up violated federal standards and could leave it vulnerable to hackers.”

GET REAL: The State Department’s inspector general began his audit when John Kerry was Secretary of State — months AFTER Hillary Clinton had already left office as Secretary of State. If you’re going to criticize her job performance, maybe it would have been a good idea to criticize while she still had the job — not 3 years and 3 months AFTER she left office.

That was just the news section.

Don’t get me started on the editorial section. Both pages of the “Opinion Exchange” went into op-ed overkill, denouncing Hillary as a power-mad sociopath, then reenforcing the newspaper’s Republican stance with more and more negative opinions about her.

On the left-hand side of page A6 was “Amateur Hour at Clinton’s State Dept.,” the official, collective opinion of The Strib’s editorial board. It cited “her record of cutting corners and ignoring the rules” — as though such a “record” actually existed before this election year. Then it included this fascist accusation: “But the fact that Clinton likely will not face charges does not mean she did nothing wrong.” Nice insinuation.

On the same page, right next to the official position of the newspaper, is the Letters to the Editor column. Instead of a bona fide “opinion exchange,” though, there’s more anti-Hillary rhetoric. So in the entire Twin Cities Metropolitan area, no readers at all wrote any letters-to-the-editor in support of Hillary Clinton? Well, of course the odds are that some readers did just that. But this biased editorial staff didn’t want to publish anything vaguely supportive of her at all!

As though an alternative viewpoint in our democracy would anger the brotherhood of GOP newspaper owners.

Welcome to the Glen Taylor School of Journalism, Fascist Division.

Under “Readers Write” is an unflattering black and white photo of her with this caption: “Hillary Clinton’s State Department e-mail practices were within the law, the FBI says with an asterisk.” An asterisk? Oh, right. The benefit of the doubt always gets extended to Republicans, never to Democrats. When it comes to Hillary’s character, it’s doubt, doubt, and more doubt.

By her name there’s also the headline “Well, that’s a vote of confidence” above a surprisingly brief letter to the editor. “So Hillary Clinton’s handling of official e-mails was not criminal, only ‘extremely careless,’ arrogant, dangerous and irresponsible,” it reads. “Now that’s reassuring.”

As if that weren’t enough, another letter — longer and more detailed but just as critical — also appears.

So here’s a candidate who was cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the FBI but still gets the venomous castigation usually reserved for rapists and murderers. OK. We get it. You guys don’t like Hillary Clinton, and you’re not going to vote for her. But that’s not enough for Glen Taylor’s experiment in ersatz journalism.

There’s no mercy for her in the political cartoon dugout, either. Steven Sack shows a beaming Hillary drawn with an arrow labeled “FBI Rebuke ‘Careless’ ‘Reckless’” sticking to her ass. The quote in the cartoon balloon reads “GOOD NEWS (OUCH! OUCH!) I DODGED (OUCH! OUCH!) THE BULLET! (OUCH! OUCH! OUCH! OUCH!).

Then in a stroke of Machiavellian genius, there’s yet another attack on the same page that’s (surprise!) critical of Hillary. But this one’s written by a woman! Nice touch. It’s not just the men who hate her. Women hate her too. The Strib had to print something more about Hillary that was negative…and it had to be written by a woman. Otherwise, some people might think the writers and editors on the paper were sexist. No! No! Not true! We just hate Hillary’s guts, that’s all. We just want you to know that we’re not sexist, even if it means reprinting a lame op-ed from the Washington Post. Even if it means the female columnist is blasting Hillary because she hasn’t given a press conference in the past 7 months. “She gets her message out in ways that are completely controlled,” writes this women. “But American citizens deserve better.”

Better than what? Better than Trump’s incendiary, “Mexicans are rapists,” remark?

Fast forward two days later to the July 8th edition.

In the strangest touch of irony yet, an editorial appeared that supported the decisions of Tony Blair and George W. Bush to go to war in Iraq. It was positioned right above another negative op-ed about Hillary, on page A 17. The title of the pro-Blair/pro-Bush feature read “Blair didn’t lie his way into Iraq. Neither did Bush.”

Then there’s this subheading: “Long investigation concludes that British leader was wrong about Saddam Hussein’s weapons capabilities. But an error is not a crime.”

This commentary reprinted from Bloomberg View ends with, “It turned out that Blair was wrong. But this was an error, not a crime; a blunder, but not a lie.”

Whoa. Do you guys know Hillary Clinton? Have you ever met her? I had to ask because I can’t help but notice that no one — AND I DO MEAN NO ONE — ever extends that gracious benefit of the doubt to her the way everyone keeps extending it to the guys. Never mind that Hillary’s use of her e-mail server didn’t start any wars — or get any British troops killed the way Blair’s error did. Republicans, reporters, and the public at large still employ the double standard when it comes to her and guys like Blair or Bush.

As if on cue, the op-ed denouncing Hillary that appears under Blair’s exoneration, has to do with Hillary’s “lying.” Again, she is denounced by a woman(!) who’s writing, this time, for Politifact. “E-mails to her private server were classified, and she knew it,” she writes. It means so much to us all when a woman gives another woman her comeuppance, doesn’t it?

How interesting that Blair’s mishandling of assessed intelligence that resulted in war casualties is defended with “an error is not a crime.” But Hillary Clinton’s “mistakes” are magnified with a special castigation for her and her character. “…the fact that Clinton likely will not face charges does not mean she did nothing wrong.” It wasn’t enough for The Strib to bring out the old double standard. Glen and the boys had to bring it out, rub all our noses in it, then celebrate their inherent sexism.

If Hillary Clinton fell in a forest, would anyone be able to write a news report about it without blaming her for falling down?
I doubt it.