2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Barrister]

I'm annoyed that the press is not persuing the evidence that Trump bribed the attorney general of Florida with nearly as much rigor as they are Clinton's emails.

I'm annoyed there hasn't been more attention that the FBI's info dump on the Clinton email investigation was released Friday afternoon before a long weekend.

How would things be different if they released those documents today?

Seriously?  It's a time-honoured strategy to bury news by releasing it on a Friday afternoon.  Being a long weekend was just icing on the cake.

Reporters were already heading out the door when the FBI documents were released.  As a result there was very little coverage Friday afternoon, and what coverage there was was little-read.

And now that the weekend is over, the FBI documents are four days old.  It's old news.  No use reporting on it now.

And so ask yourself - why would the supposedly neutral FBI release these documents at a time so convenient for the Clinton campaign?

[Berkut]

What a shock that Beebs has partaken of the kool-aid.

Trump supporters are lame. Even the secret ones.

[celedhring]

I'm pretty sure there's enough interest in finding dirt on Clinton that there wouldn't be any lack of reporting should something be found in these emails.

[Barrister]

What a shock that Beebs has partaken of the kool-aid.

Trump supporters are lame. Even the secret ones.

[Barrister]

I'm pretty sure there's enough interest in finding dirt on Clinton that there wouldn't be any lack of reporting should something be found in these emails.

Really?  The media really hasn't covered itself in glory this election cycle.

There's a reason the media has given Trump all this breathless coverage - he fits nicely in 24 hour news cycle.  He says something outrageous early in the day, they can spend the rest of the day talking about it.  Then they cut to coverage of one his rallies in the evening.

[Barrister]

It took some digging, but there were some pretty bad bits in the FBI investigation.  And as usual with the Clintons, the story is in the cover-up more so than the initial story.

How about how she ordered the emails deleted AFTER she had publicly called for them to be made public?

Or how she claimed not to know that (C) meant classified?  What the hell is she doing receiving classified bulletins then?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439664/hillary-clinton-even-more-dishonest-you-thought

[LaCroix]

And so ask yourself - why would the supposedly neutral FBI release these documents at a time so convenient for the Clinton campaign?

I'm gonna need more evidence that the FBI has abandoned its neutrality

[The Minsky Moment]

The late Friday news dump is anachronistic at this point.  The news cycle is 24/7/365 and old fashioned paper newspapers are no longer a critical news source.  It does still happen but its not very effective.  The major financial news outlets actually add bodies on Friday afternoons to review SEC filings for that reason.  I've heard media consultants sometimes suggest a late Friday release for an "attack" kind of communication because of the longer response time.  I doubt the FBI was trying manage the news cycle on this.  More like the grunts putting together just took their time wrapping it up before heading out for their weekend.

[Barrister]

And so ask yourself - why would the supposedly neutral FBI release these documents at a time so convenient for the Clinton campaign?

I'm gonna need more evidence that the FBI has abandoned its neutrality

The evidence is what it is.  It's not proof, but is highly suggestive.  It's a Public Relations truism that if you want to bury bad news you release it on a Friday afternoon.

[The Minsky Moment]

Also I don't think the media has been that bad.  It's not like there has been any shortage of Trump critical stories.  It's true that Trump takes advantage of the media's hunger for ratings in his pursuit of free publicity and his all news is good news strategy.  But at the end of the day, it is the GOP primary voters that drove his rise not the media.

[LaCroix]

plus, a lot of the alt-right types probably don't have families to spend time with on the weekends. there's plenty of time for them to dig through reports and theorize

[Berkut]

WEll, Beebs has spoken. It is True because  it is a Trumpis....errrh, because it is a Truism!

The logic chain is complete. It is truism, therefore you know it is true. Ironclad.

[garbon]

It took some digging, but there were some pretty bad bits in the FBI investigation.  And as usual with the Clintons, the story is in the cover-up more so than the initial story.

How about how she ordered the emails deleted AFTER she had publicly called for them to be made public?

Or how she claimed not to know that (C) meant classified?  What the hell is she doing receiving classified bulletins then?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439664/hillary-clinton-even-more-dishonest-you-thought

It took some digging? At least the (C) bit was already previously reported in many outlets. I definitely didn't find out about that from the National Review.

Also, not all that titillating.

[Berkut]

Also I don't think the media has been that bad.  It's not like there has been any shortage of Trump critical stories.  It's true that Trump takes advantage of the media's hunger for ratings in his pursuit of free publicity and his all news is good news strategy.  But at the end of the day, it is the GOP primary voters that drove his rise not the media.

I think the media has been and continues to be terrible.

It is clear that the goal is clicks, and nothing more. The actual relevance of a given story no longer matters, only whether or not it will drive some marginal ad revenue.

It is why stories about corrupt Hillary get coverage, even when there is nothing there - the Beebs and Sieges of the world love that stuff, so they read it and click on it, and whether there is any basis in fact or evidence is not that important, and the media knows this.

[Legbiter]

There's a reason the media has given Trump all this breathless coverage - he fits nicely in 24 hour news cycle.  He says something outrageous early in the day, they can spend the rest of the day talking about it.  Then they cut to coverage of one his rallies in the evening.

There's a decent article out today on Trump Derangement Syndrome in the pundit class and how it helps his campaign.

With Trump, the dynamic is totally different. Every single day he's bound to say something intemperate or eye-popping, so the salience of any one given remark is vastly diminished. There appears to be little that Trump would blurt out privately but not publicly; if anything it's the inverse, because by all accounts Trump is more reserved in private encounters than in public settings. Nonetheless, media doomsayers still latch feverishly onto his every irreverent comment, and conservative elites have no appetite to offer pushback or rationalizations. Because the average news consumer has a finite supply of umbrage, she eventually becomes numb to the endless meltdown coverage of Trump's antics. And she will likely be wary that the media feeding her perpetual outrage is portraying Trump's statements in a fair-minded manner.

This all comes to a head with narratives surrounding the now-notorious Trump rallies. Those who have never attended a rally but absorb a certain flavor of reportage see them as frightening, rage-filled affairs with a darkly fascistic bent. Partly because the journalists on scene are so culturally-removed from attendees and hostile to their interests, there's every incentive to cast rally-goers in the least-charitable possible light. Fishing out examples of the most ridiculous-seeming Trump devotees will always earn accolades and retweets from media colleagues.

...But a recent rally I attended in Fairfield, Connecticut, painted a far more nuanced picture for anyone who was inclined to see it. Most conspicuously, there was little sign of the doom, rage, and economic anxiety that supposedly animates Trump's supporters. The most frequently-emitted noise in the auditorium was not boos, cheers or chants, but laughter. Everybody was cracking up, over and over again. Folks were enjoying themselves immensely. One man, explaining why he supports Trump, told me: "For the taxes I pay, I want some comic relief."

That's Trump's hidden strength (or at least one that's out of sight to most culturally-rarefied journalists): there's a comedic genius about him. Given his other unsavory features, it's become gauche to acknowledge this. Yes, I realize that Trump-branded humor may resonate disproportionately with members of certain societal strata, while not at all with others—but among the receptive strata, it's an extraordinarily potent political weapon.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/06/the-mainstream-media-has-a-donald-j-trump-sized-blind-spot.html