Democrats See The Media As Biased Against Clinton

[Capt. Obvious]

We’re now into Week 2 of the Hillary Clinton email saga, but if Martin O’Malley and his aides are huddled in Maryland somewhere hoping this hurts Clinton in 2016, all I can say is, “Don’t hold your breath.” Clinton continues to hold an almost unprecedented lead over her potential opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Democrats may rally around her more fiercely as she weathers more incoming media fire.

While some might scoff at the “Clinton Media Persecution Complex,” Democratic voters buy it. Remember when the Clinton campaign was crying bias during the 2008 primary? During that period, Democrats overwhelmingly thought the press was harder on Clinton than it was on then Sen. Barack Obama.

....

While Clinton was Secretary of State, from 2009 to early 2013, the view that the press was out to get her subsided. But since she left that office — and its nonpartisan glow — behind, the percentage of Democrats who see the press as being too harsh in covering Clinton has risen from 23 percent in 2013 to 54 percent in June 2014. Just 9 percent thought the media was easier on Clinton than on the average politician, according to that June poll. This 45 percentage point gap between “harder” and “easier” is similar to how Republicans felt about the press and Republican politicians, according to YouGov polls during the first half of 2014.

....

All of this makes it more unlikely that Democratic primary voters will care all that much about Clinton’s use of a private email account to conduct government business. Democrats are invested in the Clinton 2016 campaign, and even the liberal Democrats are with her. The more the press goes after Clinton, the more likely it is that Democrats will defend her.

538

[liberal N proud]

1. The evidence is in the headlines

[mulsh]

2. last night Rachael (of all people) and Mrs. Greenspan salivating visibly over emails.

just one of many pieces of evidence available to support this position.

Way to toe the MSNBC talking points ladies.

[Laurian]

7. I was sorely disappointed with Rachel last night for her anti Hillary segment.

I turned it off. Rather than doing any original or thoughtful reporting on the subject, she just seemed to jump on the media bandwagon. I expect more from her.

[leftofcool]

3. This witch hunt has been going on for over 20 years.

Thank goodness the majority of Dems don't swallow the kool-aid.

[Cosmic Kitten]

4. If she shoots herself in the foot who's to blame?

[Capt. Obvious]

8. Nader

[RiverLover]

5. Salon: "Hillary’s email mess: Why this Clinton “scandal” will persist "

3/11/15 ....Last week I wrote about Clinton’s email troubles and the coverage surrounding them. Her decision to conduct official business on a personal account put her in a weird transparency gray area that, intentionally or not, created conditions for opacity and abuse. It’s the perfect sort of story for Clinton haters on the right and scandal-obsessed members of the press – as yet there’s no clear-cut example of wrongdoing on Hillary’s part, but it “raises questions” and “feeds into the Clinton narrative.”

With that in mind, Clinton did herself no favors at yesterday’s press conference. She confirmed that her policy for ensuring that records of her official communications were preserved had giant holes. “It was my practice to communicate with State Department and other government officials on their .gov accounts,” she said, “so those e-mails would be automatically saved in the State Department system to meet recordkeeping requirements, and that, indeed, is what happened.” In essence, she was relying on others to do her records retention for her. And there is an obvious and glaring flaw in this system: emails sent to or received from non-State Department, non-.gov accounts would not be captured....

Hillary’s email mess: Why this Clinton “scandal” will persist

[yallerdawg]

6. Is the media pushing our "Clinton fatigue" button?

What drama and conflict (ratings) will an uncontested primary create?

[Enrique]

9. i'm not one of them

at this point, the claims of bias I've heard seem to be products of bias themselves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. The irony is when the media is discussing media coverage they are discussing themselves./NT

[hobbit709]

11. the media is pretty much biased against ANY Democrat

[Capt. Obvious]

13. But Democrats don't view it that way

according to numbers in the article.

[Sick_of_TP]

12. Not at all! They are bias against all Dems.

Media is owned by the top 1% who are probably all Reps. For that reason they are doing what their owners want them to do.

What bothers me more than that is some on MSNBC want to sound unbiased on a Dem station and seems to pick on HRC as much as other stations. Last night Ed at 5:00 P.M. was the only one to totally support HRC.