Krugman on the Media's Clinton Rules

Apparently, Paul Krugman experienced the past 25 years of the Media's Clinton Rules:

[I]s this just the return of “Clinton rules”? If you are old enough to remember the 1990s, you remember the endless parade of alleged scandals, Whitewater above all — all of them fomented by right-wing operatives, all eagerly hyped by mainstream news outlets, none of which actually turned out to involve wrongdoing. The usual rules didn’t seem to apply; instead it was Clinton rules, under which innuendo and guilt by association were considered perfectly OK, in which the initial suggestion of lawbreaking received front-page headlines and the subsequent discovery that there was nothing there was buried in the back pages if it was reported at all.

So, is this time different? First indications are not encouraging; it’s already apparent that the author of the anti-Clinton book that’s driving the latest stuff is a real piece of work.

Again, maybe there’s something there. But given the history here, we’d all be well advised to follow our own Clinton rules, and be highly suspicious of any reports of supposed scandals unless there’s hard proof rather than mere innuendo.

< Loretta Lynch Confirmed as Attorney General
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    First, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:30:34 PM EST
      does the fact the NYT publishes Krugman have any bearing on perceiving it as sheriff  of the unfair Anti-Clinton posse?

      Second, does the fact he twice inserts the caveat "maybe there's something there," indicate wishy washiness or just that he is above the level of the pro-Clinton contingent here?

      Third, is it possible that he is advocating skepticism of any reports less than flattering to Clinton  for reasons other than objective principle and that he might possibly be a supporter?

      Finally, as  a supporter, might he (admittedly much more deftly) be engaging in the same type of effort to preemptively discredit anyone who dares not fawn?

    Pretty sure (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:49:42 PM EST
    ...the answers to all of those are "no."

    If you have evidence to support these baseless accusations disguised (not very well) as questions, please proceed.

    Otherwise there would be no point to your post except to fling "stuff" against the wall to see if any sticks.


    First, I know it's getting harder to (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:51:45 PM EST
    make the distinction, but does the fact that there's a difference between reporting and editorializing mean anything to you?  

    Second, is it possible that inserting "maybe there is something there" isn't wishy-washiness, it's cover-his-ass-ness?  Krugman has no desire to be stripped naked and held up for ridicule because he didn't temper his words.

    Third, is it possible the skepticism comes from the numerous times many of these accusations have been debunked, and he doesn't have to be a supporter to not just be aware of that fact, but to be sick to death of knowing we're going to be stuck in a political Groundhog Day from which there is no escape?

    [Meanwhile, it could be revealed that the GOP field is up to its collective eyeballs in various forms of corruption and self-dealing and all the media will be able to do is investigate which of the field would win the Congeniality contest and which looks best in a bathing suit.  Oh, and where does Carly Fiorina get her cute shoes?]

    Finally, there will never be a "finally."  If she gets the nomination, it will continue.  If she wins, the the bill for impeachment will be drafted while she is taking the oath of office.  They will hound her to the gates of the hell they are sure she will be going to when she dies.

    Why won't you tell us that you're really David Brooks?


    Not in this context (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:14:46 PM EST
     because the Times controls who it publishes whether reporter or editorialist. If you don't think it publishing Krugman detracts from claims it is out to get Clinton, just say so.

       You'll have to elaborate on the distinction between wishy washy and CYA for me to understand your point.

      Sure, it's possible some people are skeptical of reporting on the Clinton based on what they perceive as overblown past coverage. It's equally possible many people are legitimately skeptical of the Clintons based on their past conduct.

        For the umpteenth time, I encourage any and all to expose any and all questionable activities of any and all GOP candidates. All I've said is blaming the factClinton is currently getting more scrutiny because there is a big media  conspiracy to knock her out is silly.


    I certainly don't thnk there (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:25:12 PM EST
    is a conspiracy to "knock her out".
    Heck, I think if she dropped out half of them would go home and hang them selves and another quarter would blow a shotgun.

    They love the Clinton's.  They are like a full employment act for sh!tty shoddy lazy journalism.

    Interestingly I think it will have the same effect it has had before which is to increase their support.  The elite press never thought Bill deserved to be president.   I used to think that mostly explained the obsession but I n longer think so.  I think it's pure opportunism.  Anything about them will get eyes clicks and ink.  No matter how silly it is.


    I think you nailed it... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    the Clintons are the Kardashians of politics.

    A "news" outlet runs a Clinton story and ratings/clicks go through the roof...the people that love them tune in, the people that love to hate them tune in, the people that that love to hate the people that hate them tune in, and the people that love to hate the people that love them tune in.  Everybody and their mother tunes in...and while they're there maybe they'll buy some Tide.


    Ouch (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    Now (none / 0) (#15)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:51:51 PM EST
      I can buy into your and the Capt's theories.

    Famous last words...n/t (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 03:05:14 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:39:05 PM EST
    from what I've seen so far it seems that the BS seems to be pushing more people into her camp because they're sick of the BS.

    I think it is some of both. The press can't decide if they are white trash from Arkansas unworthy to clean the toilets in the white house or they are rich elitists. And yes it gets them lots of clicks because even for Republicans they can't stop talking about them.

    Then you have the critics who come off as condescending and smarmy who drive people out of their own camp. The smug smarminess coming out of the GOP these days is over the top.


    Fifth (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:55:25 PM EST
    Do you ever stop with the passive aggressive arguments in the form of straw "questions"?

    Sure, it's an easy way to demonstrate your ability to defeat your own, silly arguments, but it's incredibly transparent.

    Not to mention boring.


    Dear Gawd ,,, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    Second, does the fact he twice inserts the caveat "maybe there's something there," indicate wishy washiness or just that he is above the level of the pro-Clinton contingent here?

    Would you prefer he just made silly accusations in the form of questions (hint - see above, ... and pretty much every post you make).  Would that seem less "wishy washy" to you, or are his qualifiers in his direct statements enough to demonstrate that he is light years above the level of the CDSers here?


    Heh (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:32:35 PM EST
    You know (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:46:18 PM EST
    Republicans. They will flog a dead horse.

    'Tis a puzzlement (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:37:16 PM EST
    The guessing games ... and, here I am (and we all are) still trying to figure out what it is with the American press and the obvious Attitude toward the Clintons. Because it won't matter in the long run, IMO, my favorite theories about Why change from time to time.  

    Lately, seeing the sputtering re-emergence of the Wah-wah-the-Clintons-did-this-or-they-must-have-didn't-they onset from the press, I had flashes of the diatribes and sermonettes circa 1997 when these would-be journalists tried to out-predict each other as to when President Bill Clinton would resign.  Led by the TV likes of the late Tim Russert who--with face glowering red--they talked over each other rushing to say that he would be gone within week(s.)  It all got so lost after awhile ... you had to stop and try to think about what evil he must have perpetuated (forgetting periodically that it was about a human male who did not answer honestly about whether he had sex with a woman.)  

    Well, we all know what happened in the off-year elections. Democrats won back big time.  And, after the victory party was over, we sat there wondering what had the Press been thinking. The whole Press rampage had been so out-of-it.  How could they have been so wrong? What got in the way? Perspective? Reality?  In my experience, when people or organizations get something so wrong, the cause often doesn't have anything to do with facts, analysis, studies, even organizational or societal values ... it may come down to one of the most pernicious of all powerful, destructive emotions.  ENVY. You know: Why does he/she deserve all that? What does that say about us? (Hint: They might ignore us if we don't find the clay feet.)

    The faces that turn so red at the mention of one or both Clintons--especially as both Clintons continue to grow in stature, fame, wealth, and all those big things--may well be driven by the color of ENVY.  From green eyes to red faces to invariable bring-them-down-to-size blasts.

    At least you posted this (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:15:30 PM EST
    ...while Recidivist is at lunch.

    Or whatever that user name is.

    You spoke too soon . . . :( (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:00:29 PM EST
    He sure (none / 0) (#3)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    is a repeat offender when it comes to the strangulation of logic.

    First (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:28:55 PM EST
    ...does the fact that (s)he posts so much have any relationship to whether Rove, Adelson, Koch, Heritage and others pay their shills by the word?

    Second, does the fact that (s)he posts innuendo in the form of questions have the appearance of a classic concern troll?

    Third, does the lack of any cohesive argument indicate a lack of logic and lack of understanding, combined with an obsessive need to be right at any cost, or,

    Fourth, is it possible that the lack of evidence is because (s)he was instructed to sow doubt, and avoid falsifiable statements?

    Fifth, might we be wasting time responding to a minor annoyance?

    Finally, might it be time to annoy it back?


    All of the (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:35:27 PM EST
    above. If at least one Republican is already calling for Hillary to drop out of the race you know they are very concerned though not in a concern troll way. They are concerned that they are going to lose. They can read the polls as well as the rest of us. They also know that the GOP is driving voters away daily the latest being Bobby LMAO Jindal.

    Do we know that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 06:18:59 PM EST
    Regurgitron is a Republican?  I don't think that Repetivist has revealed anything like that directly.  The (s)he I referred to in my post is Repulsivist.  Or whatever that user name was.

    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 06:58:03 PM EST
    there apears to be a lot of these "concern trolls" showing up when the subject is Hillary. And they never seem to have a candidate. Or even really care much about issues. It's all about raising straw men questions about 'something". You know, the old GOP scream of if there's smoke there must be fire.

    Honestly at this rate the GOP is going to set themselves on fire and explode themselves in two months at the rate they are going.


    Well (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:18:31 PM EST
    this same thing has been tried four times 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2006 and it did not work. I guess there's the eternal hope that if they keep doing it that one day it will work.

    The GOP apparently has no positive agenda to vote for apparently and it's patently obvious to almost every voter in the country that the GOP is completely insane and beholden to the far right.