How the media reacts to a story reveals a lot. When they don’t react, it speaks even louder. The day the Planned Parenthood video broke, no mainstream media outlet bothered to cover the story. It wasn’t until an entire day later that they begrudgingly began reporting on it. Now, from a media perspective, you’ve got shocking video. It’s undercover. There’s corruption. There’s murder. There’s no question that this has to be a must-cover story, but protecting the unborn isn’t high on the media’s priority list, so they ignored it.
But they wasted no my time leaping into action when Sandra Bland died in police custody after a routine traffic stop. That was labeled a suicide from the get-go, but the media refuse to accept that answer. Slate wrote about the history of the sheriff. USA Today wrote, “Sandra Bland laid to rest as questions arise.” Hillary Clinton blamed hard truths about race and justice. Listen.
Hillary Clinton: It’s heartbreaking to read about another death of a young woman, Sandra Bland, in Texas, another young African-American life cut short, and that’s why I think it is essential that we all stand up and say loudly and clearly yes, black lives matter. We all have a responsibility to face these hard truths about race injustice honestly and directly.
Oh yes, that’s what she’s all about, honestly and directly, whether it’s race injustice or her email or anything else. You know, the New York Times went deep into the history to try and prove a race narrative in the Sandra Bland case, “Texas County’s racial past is seen as a prelude to Sandra Bland’s death.” The research done here is notable. Significant staff and resources were assigned to the story. They had to further the media narrative that police are gunning down African-Americans for sport.
Immediately after the theater shooting in Louisiana, the media went into anti-Second Amendment mode right away. “Movie theater shooter’s mental problems didn’t stop gun buy.” NPR’s story, “Theater shooting highlights high rate of gun deaths in Louisiana.” Now, they wondered if a high rate of gun ownership was indeed the problem in the state. Oh yeah.
The next thing you know, the national media conversation morphed into a juvenile debate on should we have guns or not. I thought that debate had been settled since 1791, but these statists don’t want an armed citizenry, so naturally this is where the media angle veers towards after any shooting, even when there’s a much more compelling, significant storyline, like the tragic shooting in Chattanooga where four Marines and a sailor were senselessly murdered.
When the killer’s name was released, Mohammed Yousef Abdul Aziz, the media suddenly didn’t seem so vigorous in its research. There were no teams deployed, no extra staff digging into Mohammed’s life. There was a sort of aversion to labeling this a terrorist attack, an aversion that stretched all the way up to the White House.
The media found every opportunity to label him just a normal kid. The Washington Post said this wasn’t part of jihad but rather the work of an “aimless young man who came from a troubled home and struggled to hold down a job after college,” as if that isn’t the experience of millions of other American young American men who don’t shoot up military recruiting stations.
Federal investigators have dismissed the possibility of terrorism despite the fact that according to the New York Post, yep, not the Times or NPR, property records show the mosque Mohammed attended was affiliated with the same Islamic group as the mosques the Boston Marathon bombers went to and the hijackers who hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
The common link is the American Islamic Trust, who the DOJ named as a co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial. That led to several convictions of US-based Hamas terrorist leaders. Basically they were funneling money to terrorists in Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and radicalizing people here in the states. The evidence is ample. We’ll get into the details coming up in a few minutes.
They make media’s rush to settle for the troubled teen angle all the more head scratching. Equally head scratching is the media’s desire to coddle and protect Hillary Clinton. I mean, this is a woman who just roped off the media like cattle. You’d think they’d have an ax to grind. Apparently not. The media says Hillary’s email saga is too complex, and it’s really hard to understand. So, it’s basically not a scandal at all. For it to be a scandal, we need to make up catchy banners for it, and besides, we’re busy finding ways to get Donald Trump into the news cycle.
Then out of nowhere, the New York Times dropped a bombshell. They wandered, they strayed from the approved statist line and published an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary’s email account. They claim that two inspectors general had requested a criminal investigation into whether Hillary mishandled sensitive government information, and yes, emailing classifying info over your Yahoo or Gmail is definitely mishandling top-secret information.
So, it looked bad, and then Hillary Clinton’s team called up the New York Times and complained. And would you believe it, they gave in to every complaint and rewrote the article. Look, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that the only possible reason to have a private email account as Secretary of State on which you are conducting your Secretary of State business is to do exactly what Hillary is doing right now, avoid and stave off any inquiries or investigations into wrongdoing. I mean, it’s so blatant even Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC conceded as much.
W: Is it possible Andrea, that the media analysts and others have underestimated the impact of this email situation on Hillary Clinton’s campaign?
Andrea Mitchell: I think so. Look, you have two inspectors general, and they are referring this to the Justice Department. Now, you can try to confuse it, and there’s been a lot of misdirection. There’s been inaccurate reporting significantly on Thursday night by the New York Times. It’s not a criminal referral, not at this stage. It could become, and it could become nothing. What they are suggesting is that there were classified—four out of the forty randomly selected had classified information, and it was not information that was later upgraded to be classified. It was information that was classified as “secret,” which is a level of classification at the time.
She admitted it but is still sort of meh about the whole thing. No one seems to be pointing out the gravity of the situation. I mean, here you have highly sensitive information being put at risk. Four out of forty randomly selected emails from Hillary’s private account had classified information—10%. Imagine what’s in the rest of the tens of thousands of emails, including all the ones she deleted, by the way.
During my time in the CIA, we were constantly reminded over and over again about what’s at stake with the protection of this sort of information, and we knew that there were very serious sanctions if you failed to protect classified. But Hillary’s flippantly out there on GChat or whatever spilling this stuff on unsecured networks. The media should be incensed, but Hillary Clinton herself in March said this:
Hillary Clinton: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material, so I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.
Yes, that’s not true of, of course. That’s not true based on what we already know, but you see, if it’s not classified, it doesn’t mean that information is not classified. Classification is a process. The information has a sensitivity level, and that sensitivity level determines what the classification would be. So, if Hillary emails a pal what the nuclear codes are, even if she doesn’t write classified on it, it’s still classified. So, if she’s using her Gmail account to send all this stuff to people and not using any operational security whatsoever, just putting this out there on the open web, guess what, that information is still classified even if it doesn’t have a stamp that says top-secret at the top of it.
These are the sorts of inconsistencies that you would think would fuel the media skepticism on a story, and it might actually cause them to investigate it a little further. Look at the vigor with which the media went after other scandals involving very high-profile politicians. Chris Christie, how long have we had to deal with bridgegate? Scott Walker has a long-term investigation into those around him because of a convoluted series of allegations about how he’s moved money around and campaign coordination. Oh, they’ve got a name for this too, by the way, “Scott Walker’s dark money problem.” Ooh, spooky.
Rick Perry, of course, they opened an abuse of power investigation into him, but Hillary, when it comes to her, it’s complicated, depends on what your definition of classified is.