Media swings from underplaying an alleged hack to overplaying it
NY Times:
Clinton did much more damage to her campaign than anything the Russians allegedly did. Her unsecured server was her own doing and was used not so much for convenience as she claimed but to hide the pay for play scheme she and her husband were running with their foundation. She and her friends the media are still claiming that the unsecured server was not hacked, but the DNC was. That just does not sound credible.
Probably the most damaging thing she did was attack the Trump supporters as "deplorable" and "irredeemable." Her own polling showed that led to a dramatic movement by the undecided votes against her. I have seen no polling indicating that the Wikileaks material moved voters one way or the other which raises real questions about how reporters could call it "devastatingly effective."
As for the FBI investigation, she and her people were wholly responsible for the conduct that led to that investigation and were lucky they were not indicted. Their conduct could easily have gotten a Lance Corporal in the Marine Corps some brig time. Probably one of the reasons she was not indicted is because Obama was aware of her breach and participated in it to some degree.
It should also be pointed out the hacks under the Obama administration show a serially incompetent response to cyber attacks. During the 2014 elections the Russians hacked the White House communications and the media largely tried to ignore it until after the votes were cast. The Obama administration did nothing that was reported in response to the attacks and again the media largely downplayed them.
The Obama administration seemed to have a "thanks, may I have another" approach to cyber attacks. Now that Trump is alleged to have benefited from a much less dangerous hack, it is suddenly a big deal. You get the impression the media fears a Trump administration more than Russian hackers.
I do not buy the claim that the Wikileaks disclosures had a "devastating" effect. Liberals in the media did their best to ignore the information and when they commented on it at all is usually it was to suggest it was not of great import. Republicans found it more interesting, but they were going to vote against Clinton anyway.How Moscow Aimed a Perfect Weapon at the U.S. Election
- A Times investigation reveals missed signals, slow responses and a continuing underestimation of the seriousness of a campaign of cyberespionage to disrupt the presidential race.
- A low-cost, high-impact weapon that Russia had test-fired in elections elsewhere was trained on the U.S., with devastating effectiveness.
Clinton did much more damage to her campaign than anything the Russians allegedly did. Her unsecured server was her own doing and was used not so much for convenience as she claimed but to hide the pay for play scheme she and her husband were running with their foundation. She and her friends the media are still claiming that the unsecured server was not hacked, but the DNC was. That just does not sound credible.
Probably the most damaging thing she did was attack the Trump supporters as "deplorable" and "irredeemable." Her own polling showed that led to a dramatic movement by the undecided votes against her. I have seen no polling indicating that the Wikileaks material moved voters one way or the other which raises real questions about how reporters could call it "devastatingly effective."
As for the FBI investigation, she and her people were wholly responsible for the conduct that led to that investigation and were lucky they were not indicted. Their conduct could easily have gotten a Lance Corporal in the Marine Corps some brig time. Probably one of the reasons she was not indicted is because Obama was aware of her breach and participated in it to some degree.
It should also be pointed out the hacks under the Obama administration show a serially incompetent response to cyber attacks. During the 2014 elections the Russians hacked the White House communications and the media largely tried to ignore it until after the votes were cast. The Obama administration did nothing that was reported in response to the attacks and again the media largely downplayed them.
The Obama administration seemed to have a "thanks, may I have another" approach to cyber attacks. Now that Trump is alleged to have benefited from a much less dangerous hack, it is suddenly a big deal. You get the impression the media fears a Trump administration more than Russian hackers.
Comments
Post a Comment