A candidate who wallows in bigotry, who incites violence, who verbally abuses his critics, who is a self-avowed threat to the free press, who trashes U.S. generals while praising Vladimir Putin, who demeans Gold Star families, gets less negative coverage than his opponent, a lifelong public servant who is one of the most accomplished and admired women on the planet.

It is an unfathomable reality.

…Within weeks of her presidential campaign announcement in 2015, the terms used to describe her in major “non-partisan” publications included “slithering, imperious, musty, petulant, paranoid, stale, scornful, regal, devious, deceitful, robotic, and abnormal.” 

During the course of 2015, it was obvious that actual reporting on her policies would take a back seat to toxic narratives about her character. Many of those corrosive narratives have their roots in carefully tested message frames concocted in …opposition research shops funded by conservative[s]…

• A male candidate is smart, while Hillary Clinton 
  is “calculating, scheming, crafty, manipulative.”
• A male candidate values privacy, while Hillary Clinton
  is “secretive, suspicious, paranoid, uncommunicative.”
• A male candidate takes strong positions, while Hillary Clinton
  is “polarizing, divisive, alienating.”
• A male candidate deserves the benefit of the doubt,
  while Hillary Clinton is “untrustworthy, dishonest, unethical.”
• A male candidate is an achiever, while Hillary Clinton
  is “over-ambitious, will do or say anything to win.”
• A male candidate is diplomatic, while Hillary Clinton
  is “inauthentic, disingenuous, fake, unlikable, insincere.”
• A male candidate is solid and unflappable, while Hillary Clinton
  is “machine-like, robotic, abnormal, cold.”
• A male candidate is a confident leader, while Hillary Clinton
  is “inevitable, defiant, imperious, regal.”
• A male candidate is experienced, while Hillary Clinton
  is “old, out of touch, represents the past.”

…Lauer held Clinton and Trump to entirely different standards, aggressively grilling her on her emails while letting Trump dishonestly claim that he had never supported the Iraq War. He repeatedly interrupted Clinton as she was speaking, while treating Trump with sheepish deference. Lauer’s segment with Clinton looked like an antagonistic debate; his segment with Trump looked like a polite conversation.

Lauer spent so much time on Clinton’s emails …that he later had to rush her through her response on ISIS, a real national security crisis.

R.I.P. Political Journalism (1440-2016) – Shareblue

hmmmm