# Is Hillary's scandalous image purely due to misinformation and insinuation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 29, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577 "2016-02-29T23:27:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/41 "2016-03-01T19:09:40Z")
If Fox News and the Republicans spent even 1/10th the effort they spend trying to manufacture ‘scandals’ for Democrats on making them for Donald Trump, he wouldn’t be where he is today. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/42 "2016-03-01T19:28:13Z")
After decades of attacks, nothing said about Clinton fazes me anymore. I assume each attack is a lie like the ones before it and will vote for her, happily, over any GOP candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/43 "2016-03-01T19:33:51Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > Hillary’s biggest problem is her own attitude. The way she’s responsed to, well, each and every one of these scandals, it’s clear she thinks she should be above reproach. > > What difference does Benghazi make? This is where I stopped reading this post. Thank you for making the OP’s point. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/44 "2016-03-01T20:15:03Z")
Media Matters isn’t just ‘biased’ - it’s virtually an arm of the Clinton campaign. Everything they say should be taken with a huge grain of salt. And even if they write material that has good cites, there is more than one way to spin a story. For example, by not linking to equally credible cites that make contradictory claims to your desired narrative. NBC News: [Calling out Media Matters Bias](http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2007/11/15/4429164-calling-out-media-matters-bias) This was from the 2007 campaign. In case people don’t know, Media Matters was formed by David Brock, a muckracking ‘journalist’ who first went after the Clintons (and was thoroughly discredited, even on the right), and who then restored his career by jumping ship and becoming a muckracker for the Clintons. When Media Matters was first formed, it was given space at the Center for American Progress by John Podesta, who was Bill Clinton’s chief of staff and who is now the chairman of Hillary’s campaign. Media Matters, like [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org), was formed with the explicit purpose of defending the Clintons and going after their critics. The default assumption should be that anything they write about them is propaganda unless proven otherwise. The Center for American Progress should be equally suspect, since Podesta is also its chair and it has always been closely tied to the Clintons. Nobody would listen to a media organization run by Karl Rove. They’d assume that anything it produced would be Republican spin - especially if he was the current chair of a Republican’s presidential campaign. Why should the Democratic equivalents be given a pass? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/45 "2016-03-01T20:23:26Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Media Matters isn’t just ‘biased’ - it’s virtually an arm of the Clinton campaign. You mean it’s anti-Sanders? You got a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/46 "2016-03-01T20:27:22Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This was from the 2007 campaign. In case people don’t know, Media Matters was formed by David Brock, a muckracking ‘journalist’ who first went after the Clintons (and was thoroughly discredited, even on the right), and who then restored his career by jumping ship and becoming a muckracker for the Clintons. If Brock’s [_The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_Noise_Machine) is “muckraking,” it is [muckraking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker) in the original and best sense of the word, the Lincoln-Steffens sense. Which is more than can be said for any of those anti-Hillary books out there. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/47 "2016-03-01T20:28:56Z")
BTW, there is only one “c” in “muckraking.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/48 "2016-03-01T20:37:49Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This was from the 2007 campaign. In case people don’t know, Media Matters was formed by David Brock, a muckracking ‘journalist’ who first went after the Clintons (and was thoroughly discredited, even on the right), and who then restored his career by jumping ship and becoming a muckracker for the Clintons. > > … > > Why should the Democratic equivalents be given a pass? Well, to begin with you are an ignorant to the bit that he actually did a lot of the discrediting for the right wing muckracking himself because he could not stomach what the Republicans were doing to the gay community. AFAIK he did a lot of the discredit when he did come out. So there are reasons why to give him a pass, most importantly the fact that when I look at what MM reports it turns out to be more accurate than what the media has reported. I saw that for example with the court cases on Obamacare, the dreamers, Benghazi and many others. And then yours is yet another shooting the messenger bit. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/49 "2016-03-01T20:38:42Z")
From TIME Magazine: [Q&A: David Brock on Attacking Bernie Sanders - An Interview With Hillary Clinton’s Chief Defender](http://time.com/4214020/david-brock-correct-record-media-matters-hillary-clinton/) Reminder: Brock runs MediaMatters > [@Time](#): > > He is a founder of Media Matters and Correct The Record—two groups that monitor and “correct” news reports about Clinton; and Super PACS American Bridge and Priorities USA, which work to help Democratic candidates, especially Clinton. In the interview, both sides appear to agree with the notion that Brock’s and Media Matters’ job is to explicitly defend Clinton, and that his work is coordinated with John Podesta’s campaign activities. Media Matters has gone after Bernie, but they have to be careful because Hillary needs Bernie’s supporters in the general election. > [@](#): > > \*\*Q. \*\*When you called on Bernie to release his health records, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta told you on Twitter to “chill out.” Where do you see the line you cannot cross with Bernie? > > \*\*A. \*\*Correct the Record, which is the super PAC that I have, coordinates its activity with the campaign. … Now, that doesn’t mean that everything I say or do is run through the campaign. John—we don’t always agree on the exact right approach and I took him at his word and I got the message. Can there be any doubt? Seriously? I mean, not even Brock disputes what his purpose is. And by the way, he admits right there that his PAC is coordinating its activities with the Clinton campaign, which is ethically and legally dubious unless the PAC’s spending is recorded as an in-kind contribution to the campaign. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/50 "2016-03-01T20:48:55Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Can there be any doubt? Seriously? I mean, not even Brock disputes what his purpose is. And by the way, he admits right there that his PAC is coordinating its activities with the Clinton campaign, which is ethically and legally dubious unless the PAC’s spending is recorded as an in-kind contribution to the campaign. I have not said that there can be bias, what I said is that he has been more accurate than the media in many subjects. That is what I’m just saying. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/51 "2016-03-01T21:08:32Z")
> [@nate](#): > > … There was an older gentleman who was “addicted” to falling for these online/e-mail Nigerian-prince type scams. In this scene his son was questioning him about it, and the guy said “well, they all can’t be scams!”. That sort of mentality when we really want to believe something is true, makes us susceptible to the machine-gun fire of insinuation and can change our perspective of someone, even though each case could be proven false. It’s the constant accusations that paint the picture of her, not the actual truth behind the accusations. Yes. (And if Sanders if the Democratic nominee, we will get to see this process in action from its beginning—albeit in a more condensed time frame than is the case with the process we’ve witnessed being used on Hillary.) > [@adaher](#): > > Hillary Clinton’s ethical issues are quite real… > 11. Landing under sniper fire- Yep, she lied. She does that a lot. > … > 20. Benghazi- Mistakes were made. I used to be a harsh Clinton critic on Benghazi(actually, more Obama than Clinton), but now I just think it was a not that unusual government cockup that had more to do with miscommunication and turf wars and poor judgement by the ambassador. The “it was a movie” thing though does count against her. Another bigtime lie. > > … So basically, she does nothing outright illegal, but she does lie very easily … ^ This post is quite typical of anti-HC stuff in that it purports to “show facts” but fails to do so, relying instead on insinuation and unsourced claims. Though I don’t believe there’s ever been a successful politician who was also a saint, it’s certainly not ideal to have one who “does lie very easily” (etc.) as the postwriter claims. But when pinned down, these anti-Hillary folks never seem to be able to come up with anything concrete (again, as with the postwriter quoted just above). The only out-and-out lie (to stretch the definition) that I’ve been able to see being well-sourced is the “under sniper fire” thing. In March 2008, HC was making a campaign speech. According to a CNN account: > [@](#): > > She said [that] when she arrived in Bosnia on March 25, 1996, “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” > But news video footage of her arrival at Tuzla shows Clinton, then the first lady, calmly walking from the rear ramp of a U.S. Air Force plane with her daughter, Chelsea, then 16, at her side. Both Clintons held their heads up and did not appear rushed. [Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire - CNN.com](http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=hpmostpop) “Lie” doesn’t seem the correct designation for this sort of thing, unpleasant as it is. It’s the same type of making-oneself-more-important mis-memory that brought down NBC’s Brian Williams, of course. Memory is NOT immutable, but people in the public eye such as Clinton and Williams should, at the very least, have assistants who will vet their speeches in advance to be sure that misstatements of the kind are not made. Clinton and Williams had each been in dangerous places and could plausibly have misremembered the particular danger they’d been in on the particular days they were recalling. Their statements differ in kind, I think, from the kind of tall tales told by people who were never actually in danger. For example, Bill O’Reilly had some bad press in 2015, from CNN among others, about claims he’s made; one was the “nuns in El Salvador” thing: [Bill O'Reilly forced to clarify remarks about murdered nuns](http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/media/bill-oreilly-el-salvador-nuns/) Then there are outright hoaxers who make claims in order to get cash, or sympathy–or votes. The infamous 9-11 hoaxer Tania Head is a well-known example. Whether one puts Donald Trump’s claim that he ‘saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9-11’ in the same category may be a matter of political affiliation. Hillary’s misremembering the amount of danger she was in in Bosnia twelve years earlier, is a question of failure to fact-check (for which I do blame her). But to claim that it’s an outright lie simply isn’t logical. She knew that video footage would exist; how does it make sense to believe that she’d rub her hands together and say, in effect, _those suckas will never know that this is completely made up_…? It’s an absurd thing to believe. As for the claim that she “lied about Bengazi,” that was ably addressed by this excellent post: > [@GIGObuster](#): > > … as it happened the big lie came from Fox news, not the early confusion, but telling others only one part of the news, the reality was that there was a lot of confusion then and contradictory reports made the administration fall sincerely for some wrong info. However some of the attackers did report that it was motivated in part by the anti-Islam online video > > [NYT: Captured Suspect Said Benghazi Attack Was Revenge For Anti-Islam Video - TPM – Talking Points Memo](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/khattala-benghazi-video-new-york-times) > > The consensus later was that indeed the attack was planned before and no good connection could be made with the movie, but I would not be surprised that part of the confusion came because the movie did offend many Libyans and what the movie did was just create an opportunity too good to miss for the terrorists… So there was a lot of speculation about motivation right after the attack, unsurprisingly, and Fox and the Libyan official were among those saying ‘the movie angered the attackers’… and Susan Rice went on the talk shows five days later and repeated the same thing. Yeah, I think there was political spin involved in emphasizing that particular theory rather than competing theories (such as the possibility, which in time was proven true, that the attacks had been planned in advance). Political spin is never attractive. But I still don’t see where any fair-minded person gets “Hillary lied” out of it. …I’m still waiting for the anti-Hillary folks to come up with an actual, sourced example of an outright lie knowingly told by Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/52 "2016-03-01T21:10:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I have to add that the reason why I go for Media Matters is that they do cite what they report, and like Nate Silver I do check how good a source is constantly. So far the MM experts that they consult in controversial matters do get it right regarding what will take place on the courts and with other issues. Great point. I know the phrase ‘reality has a liberal bias’ is an old saw by now, but can anyone who waves off MM point to a better website? One that shows the other points of view, backed up by reliable citations and not opinion pieces? I won’t hold my breath. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/53 "2016-03-01T21:13:47Z")
No, apparently reality has a Hillary Clinton bias, right? Because the media sites that are essentially arms of the Clinton campaign are just so darned accurate all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/54 "2016-03-01T21:34:12Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > No, apparently reality has a Hillary Clinton bias, right? When it comes to these ‘scandals’, apparently so. If it’s so easy to cite 'n spin, please direct me to the anti-Hillary version for consideration. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/55 "2016-03-01T21:35:34Z")
I’m sorry, but the sheer amount of riches they got from corporations and governments seeking influence in a future Clinton administration should raise some serious concerns. And I know it does raise serious concerns. It’s just that Bernie fans are willing to say it and Clinton fans aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/56 "2016-03-01T21:43:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > No, apparently reality has a Hillary Clinton bias, right? Because the media sites that are essentially arms of the Clinton campaign are just so darned accurate all the time. Not my impression, I’m aware of a few times where they were wrong like when reporting on how many stations Glenn Beck did lose, the point is that there are more accurate than others I see out there. As pointed out I only report that after years of observing I do think there is a lot of merit on consulting experts, the media has an issue with looking for controversy, that usually causes the mainstream media to skip that part of consulting proper experts in order to keep some dumb controversies going; because many times the proper experts will shot down the narrative. like when talking about the science of climate change, most of the mainstream does not tell many viewers of how dumb and less of an expert the contrarian side is (a side that is usually coming from the right wing). > **[STUDY: How The Media Is Covering Presidential Candidates' Climate Science Denial](https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/study-how-media-covering-presidential-candidates-climate-science-denial)** > > Several months into the 2016 presidential campaign, the media is frequently failing to fact-check statements by presidential candidates denying the science of climate change. Seven major newspapers and wire services surveyed by Media Matters have... ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577/57 "2016-03-01T23:48:40Z")
All that shit just keeps on turning out to be fabricated, doesn’t it, **Sam**? Ever stop to wonder what’s really happening? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillarys-scandalous-image-purely-due-to-misinformation-and-insinuation/747577.md?page=2)