You might be wondering, as L. Brent Bozell is, where all the negative coverage of Hillary is. According to a press release:
"New Book by Media Analyst Brent Bozell Shows How Journalists Refuse to Investigate Serious Charges or Report Clinton Scandals"
Okay kids. Sit down. Take out your notepads. We're going to have a little lesson on how to write a press release title. We're not even going to go further than the title. It would take too long and it's almost happy hour.
Rule #1: Make it interesting. The first interesting phrase in the release is "investigate serious charges." But it's almost at the end. Speaking of which...
Rule #2: Titles should be short. Not long. And definitely not crazy media-conspiracy-theory long like this one. If you're an organization that's into the crazy media conspiracy theories, you can look way more sane by following the "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" rule. It goes as follows: "Brief."
Rule #3: Make it timely (the "new book" angle isn't enough). I want to know why I need to go to Brent Bozell to get all of my Hillary-Gets-Off-Easy news. What is something she JUST DID that she got away with?
Rule #4: New book? Or new study? Because journalists love studies. They get goosebumps just thinking about them. You could write a study showing that the Jews really did make up the Holocaust, and I assure you, reporters will just wave you through, balancing the report by calling it a "controversial study." They can quote all the outraged people they want, they're still publicizing your work, and isn't that what P.R. is all about?
Anyway. I'm not impressed by the press release because I really want this point to go far and wide:
"The national media have flagrantly abandoned their duty as independent and dispassionate journalists," write Bozell and co-author Tim Graham. "When Republicans are investigated by the media, it is done with such tenacity it usually leads to a humiliating resignation or electoral defeat. When there is a hint of impropriety by the Clintons, the media react quite differently."
Partisan cult-of-victimization lines aside, the point stands that the only serious reporting being done on Hillary has been on her laugh, but not very much has been said of her ties with criminal donors. Which, surely, is just the recent news hook Brent Bozell can use to lob his book into the hyperactive media bloodstream.
...Or not:
a) By ignoring the allegation, as NPR and PBS did for 500 days after Whitewater broke,
b) By turning the story into an investigation of the Clinton's accusers, which Mrs. Clinton usually claims to be conservative Republicans, or a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,"
c) With little investigation, the issue is not resolved,
d) The public grows weary of it and no longer cares about the end result.
Wait. Whitewater? That was years ago. And yes, it's an example of how no one cares about something because it was underreported, but again. It was years ago. And no one cares! As far as voters are concerned, it's a little like World War I. It was something important but not as important as the thing that happened after it, but it was kinda confusing, and I think I hear the phone ringing. Heck, why not mention the fact that little scrutiny has been applied to her taking advice from fmr. National Security Advisor and Thief Extraordinare Sandy Berger?
It is a big help to the Hillary campaign that she's scrutinized on things that have nothing to do with policy. But that is, in many ways, the fault of Republicans who thought that demonizing her personality would prevent her from moving forward. It's about time they started raising questions about policy and focused on how similar Hillary is to Edwards. Otherwise, they'll have to sit through more rounds of nonsense like useless comparisons between Hillary and the new Presidette of Argentina.
