Ex-Huff Post Journo: How The Media Sleeps With Hillary
12
7

Hillary Clinton has not subjected herself to an open press conference in going on 270 days.
She has sustained massive PR blows during this time frame, with the public increasingly focused on her deteriorating health, her and her husband’s byzantine money-raising foundation and even darker rumours.
Despite this, the corporate media has been a source of unlimited compassion toward Hillary Clinton and her campaign.
It’s as if Hillary Clinton makes herself available for public commentary at any and all hours of the day, such is her vitality.
It’s as if the radical transparency organization Wikileaks had not released an unsettling 30,322 emails and email attachments from her private email server — the contents of which we will get into below.
I used the phrase “as if” in the previous paragraph because in reality, of course, Hillary Clinton has been mysteriously absent from any unscripted media whatsoever.
When she *is* seen in public, it’s with the support of mysterious medical handlers around her, one of whom has been spotted with what appears to be some kind of drug injection pen.
Users on Twitter have shared photographs of what appears to be an oversized medical paddy wagon of some kind for Mrs. Clinton’s use.
A viral video made by this network’s own Paul Joseph Watson, viewed more than four million times already, purports to show Mrs. Clinton experiencing what could very well be a brief “Jacksonian seizure” or similarly disturbing neurological event, according to the experts Watson consulted.
The video footage is very unsettling and almost incontrovertible.
Given all this, you would think that a free and unfettered media would begin to peel back the curtain here and ask, well, WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON?
Hillary Clinton’s behaviour, elusiveness, and the rumours concerning her health status have now reached such a fever pitch that the media’s lack of interest… or air time… is supremely bizarre.
And thankfully a few others in the media are speaking up now, to say that whatever is happening this election season, IT IS NOT NORMAL.
The Observer’s Liz Crokin published a piece on the publication’s web site, “Media Orgs Donate to Clinton Foundation Then Downplay Clinton Foundation Scandal,” which does a good job of serving as an introduction to what is so wrong here:
Hillary Clinton and her media allies have been working overtime to put out numerous fires that continue to pop up and spread during the final weeks of her campaign for president. Recently, the flames have gotten more difficult to smother as reports of Clinton’s frail health have bled into the mainstream media, despite the unanimous and unilateral decision by the MSM to treat anyone who even raises a question as akin to a Holocaust denier. (On Sunday night, for example, Huffington Post fired contributor David Seaman and deleted his columns simply for linking to a Hillary health video that’s been viewed four million times.)
Julian Assange stoked more flames when he suggested a murdered DNC worker was the Wikileaks source for the DNC hack. Most recently, the Associated Press released a blockbuster story concluding that more than half of the people Clinton met with as secretary of state gave donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Despite these ongoing scandals, Clinton’s close yet questionable ties to media outlets such as Google, CNN, PBS and The New York Times have seemed to pay off. These entities have gone out of their way to censor negative stories about Clinton, particularly ones involving the Clinton Foundation. There’s one common thread though these media outlets suppressing harmful Clinton stories all share: they’ve donated to the Clinton Foundation.
So what is going on here? Well, the collusion between the corporate media and the Clinton campaign — for whatever reason — appears very real. It’s the culmination of relationships that have taken many years to establish and strengthen.
Thanks to Julian Assange and the Wikileaks Clinton email archive, we now know quite a bit about who is on Corporate Media Team Clinton, no matter what.
Consider an email in which Hillary Clinton is asked if she’s interested in an “informal setting to talk to some influential new York city writers and opinionators.”
It will be a “smallish dinner,” the organizer notes, where Hillary in a relaxed atmosphere will be able to relay to some of the media’s most influential “the highs and even some lows of policy making on Libya, China, Iran, the Arab spring and the Israel Palestinian issue.”
Even some of the lows! My God, does Clinton’s “flawless” foreign policy record even have any “lows” to speak of? This organizer is one bold fellow. But I digress.
The organizer concludes his pitch with what he knows Clinton will need to see the star-studded list of invitees- “They are: Eleanor Randolph and carol Giacomo from the New York times editorial board, Richard Cohen of Washington post, David Remnick and Rick Hertzberg from the New Yorker, Leon Wieseltier and Frank Foer from the New Republic, Tina Brown from Newsweek, my wife from CNN and ABC, and maybe one or two others like Tom Brokaw. The point is not to create news stories, but to ensure when these people deliver their inevitable assessments of your term as Secretary they have an appreciation.”
Of course, not to create news stories, just to have that “appreciation” when the time comes.
Hillary Clinton replied to the organizer’s pitch, “I’d like to do this and am copying my folks to start looking for a time. Thanks for staying in touch. All the best. —H.”
CCed on the email is close Clinton staffer Huma Abedin.
For me, at least, there is something completely wrong here. It’s a suspicion and a gut feeling I’ve had for years after a varied career in cable and online media.
MY OWN EXPERIENCES
When I was in Los Angeles doing my media stuff, I would sometimes tell my close friends that I thought my mere existence and career were signs America could be fixed.
There’s been some overgrowth of the surveillance state and military industrial complex, for sure. But with a free press and constitutionally protected free speech, we have the tools in our hands to fix what’s wrong, and move forward.
That’s what I thought.
But I didn’t last long out there. The national TV show I was on frequently got canceled; they fired the hosts, replacing both of them with a very establishment Meghan McCain. I was never booked again. Producers stopped returning my emails.
Eventually, I was simply shut out of any media outlets worth being on.
Thank God for the Internet, YouTube, and sites like this one. I no longer believe we have freedom of press in the United States, but the important thing to remember is that only a few people are holding us back. The few individuals financing all the biased media and propaganda, they’re outnumbered and even out moneyed. If each of us start voting with our wallets, even in small ways, it’s game over.
And they deserve a game over. As a journalist and researcher, I don’t like being shut out. Don’t like being silenced. Don’t like being disconnected from my own readers, after building up a relationship with them.
There will be hell to pay for the establishment. You can’t abuse your population in this manner and not expect blowback, fall-out, whistleblowers, and even more disclosures.
I suspect Julian Assange will drop his best stuff on the censoring military-industrial ghoul, Mrs. Clinton, immediately before the election.
If he doesn’t, it’s truly hard to fathom how the world will fare after the election. I’ve begun praying.