Clinton Coverage

An informed public is the bedrock of a free society.

   The opposition charges that the "biased media" fails to report Hillary Clinton's transgressions, and that journalists do not devote the right amount of space and time to the various problems and negative issues involving the Democratic nominee for President.
   They cite issues like the Benghazi incident and her responsibility while she was Secretary of State.
   Or the Clinton Foundation, and the propriety of accepting donations to the charity from foreign donors.
   Or the security of her private email system, which she used while Secretary of State. (Members of Congress also use their own email systems to receive and send government materials, some of which were classified.)
   Or her support, later withdrawn, of an international trade agreement, after an amendment was attached that was contrary to American interests.
   But if the news media have been ignoring these issues, as Republicans allege, how is it that readers and TV viewers know about them already?
   And if there are other issues that have not been publicized, what are they? Tell journalists what they are, or at least suggest where they may be found and documented, and reporters will check them and then run the stories. And if you insist on anonymity, as many initial sources do, journalists will find additional sources to confirm the allegations.
   Meanwhile, prosecutors will track down proof of any illegal activities and file charges.
   Otherwise, if GOP operatives persist in calling the Democratic nominee "crooked Hillary," journalists will ask for evidence and proof of such allegations.
   Along the way, editors will continue to select the more juicy stories. If that means putting one candidate's proven falsehoods, inane assertions, dangerous and unconstitutional proposals on the top of Page One, that's part of the job.