The media has lost credibility by denying Clinton had a health problem

Sharyl Attkisson:
...
...the incident raises questions about the news media’s coverage surrounding Clinton’s health. Rather than reporting the facts, many in the media have taken it upon themselves to shout down the questions and to controversialize those asking them. On August 21, 2016, after Trump adviser Rudolph Giuliani suggested people research Clinton’s medical state on Google, a New York Times tech columnist retorted in a tweet:

“Google should fix this. It shouldn’t give quarter to conspiracy theorists.” Tweet by Farhad Manjoo of the New York Times, 8/21/2016.
In other words, the columnist was advocating that a conspiracy be committed to stop people from researching Clinton’s health, which he labeled a conspiracy. Many others in the media also chimed in using the “conspiracy theory” moniker. It’s designed to convince the public to tune out the discussion, in much the same way as other common astroturf terms such as “debunked,” “bonkers,” “tin-foil hat,” “shoddy,” “discredited,” “quack,” “bogus,” “denier,” and “crank.”

Left-wing apparatus Vox chimed in with an article titled: “The bonkers conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton’s health.” The pro-Hillary Clinton smear machine, Media Matters, chided NBC News for “mainstreaming conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health.” Vice picked up the theme writing, “How conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health went mainstream.” CNN published an article “Debunking conspiracy theories” about her health. CNN media critic Brian Stelter urged the media: “Do Not Give Oxygen To ‘Conspiracy Theories’ That Hillary Clinton Is ‘Secretly Ill’.” HuffPost wrote, “Let’s call the conspiracy theories about Clinton’s health what they are…” ThinkProgress joined in with, “Trump campaign embraces conspiracy theory…” From MSNBC: “Trump, allies push conspiracy theory about Clinton’s health.” NPR: “Trump adds fuel to conspiracy theory about Clinton’s health.” You get the idea. Everybody’s on the same page.

In fact, questions about Clinton’s health, whether grounded or far-fetched, had little to do with supposed conspiracies.

Today, a Washington Post reporter acknowledged that he, too, had recently argued the discussion was “the stuff of conspiracy theorists.” But now, in the face of the obvious, he agrees there are legitimate concerns.

Coughing, I wrote, is simply not evidence enough of any sort of major illness that Clinton is assumed to be hiding. Neither, of course, is feeling “overheated.” But those two things happening within six days of each other to a candidate who is 68 years old makes talk of Clinton’s health no longer just the stuff of conspiracy theorists.–Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza

In other words, all this was “the stuff of conspiracy theorists” until the reporters who appear to have been proven wrong, decided it was not. It’s almost as if we in the media take an editorial position with no factual basis, dare critics to prove us wrong, and then when events do, we modify our stance.
...
Pneumonia is a serious illness.  Attkisson points out that about 50,000 people a year die from it in the US.  Treatment generally requires bed rest which is complicated by the serious coughing.  The patient may need IV's to deal with the dehydration.

The reporters failed to get the facts before trying to shoot down the "conspiracy theories" of the opposition.  They have forfeited their credibility on the issue.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Another one of those Trump stories Ted Cruz warned about

Iraq says civilian casualties in Mosul caused by ISIS booby trap, not US air strike