shoehornhands

> One option of course, which as a European who had to live with media-government collusion his whole life, is to triangulate

That's what's really depressing about this: it is absurdly easy to get to the bottom of whether a fricking blender is worth buying, but important events happening in the world? Get your researchin' shoes on.

By the way, thank you very much for your input - your experience in that arena is unique and very valuable to the discussion.

> The trust I have had in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ABC/NBC/CBS, Democratic and Republican parties has been irreparably damaged.

To borrow a phrase that usually makes me think of a milennial with a punchable face, "This^100."

I always held those news organizations skeptically in the back of my mind as Every Educated Person Ought To, but this is just...unbelievable.

> There's a difference between consenting and merely not calling the police...That's how I read the "they let you do it" quote.

So yeah...grasping at straws.

> If someone kisses you or touches you in a sexual way without your permission then it's sexual assault. It's that simple.

Which if we take at face value then every single teen boy has committed sexual assault, starting with the "yawn and put your arm around her" move.

As the saying goes, "If everybody's guilty of everything, then nobody's guilty of anything."

But we need to be careful not to conflate two issues here: suppose we even had iron-clad proof that he did it and was unapologetic and planned to do it again next Thursday, there is zero excuse for the press's near-complete silence on the Clinton emails.

I'm not pretending to offer a theory as to why this lack of coverage is occurring - just mentioning it as a data point.

> On the one hand we have an email dump that, while there seems to be some amount of smoke, doesn't itself represent much of a fire. Just the usual Clinton crap: lots of shady stuff that rides the line of ethics, and veers pretty far into a inside political baseball.

You do not seem to be very familiar with them.

>On the other, we have a wildly controversial presidential candidate caught talking about sexually assaulting women

Demonstrably false. Say what you want about the unsavory nature of the quote, the only way it can refer to sexual assault is if you willfully omit the last part of the quote (" they let you do it.")

> followed by women coming out and actually saying he did it

Then followed by several witnesses who came out and said "I was there, and nothing remotely close to this happened." These were also to my knowledge not reported in the mainstream media with the exception of the New York Post, which covered the witness to the allegations of sexual assault on a plane.

> Based purely on the assumption that news == entertainment, which story do you think will get the headlines?

My issue wasn't that they weren't getting the same font size as the groping allegations - my issue is that they aren't getting covered AT ALL.

So do I believe the stories contained in the wikileaks dumps are more newsworthy than "Donald Trump got fresh with me 30 years ago (and do me a favor and ignore anyone who says otherwise? kthx)"? ...Yeah, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say they are.

Or again, you could "use regular ol' common sense" and ask yourself 'If I replaced the name 'Clinton' with the name 'Trump' in this case, would the outcome be the same?"

If you don't think so, I'll give you my Skype username so you can look me in the eye and tell me the media wouldnt pounce on a story of Trump's campaign manager complaining about "needy Latinos"

> What part of the cache was doctored? What was left out? The big publications know that and won't be provoked.

This is a very good point.

However, I don't think it applies in this case, since for this to be true, it would imply that had this been Trump's campaign manager's email account that was hacked with similar Trump-related campaign revelations contained in it, the mainstream media would refuse to report it for the same reason.

And I don't believe that for a tenth of a second.

That's really the only glimmer of hope I've seen through all this. There was a report I saw somewhere that people were experiencing unprecedented physical stress during this election season, and I believe it: seeing stuff like this everywhere you turn really does to an extent make you feel like you're going crazy.

I was referring to the email dump in general. There are enormous stories in there, any one of which if they involved Trump instead of Clinton would be front page top story, no question.

With regard to the specific subset of emails OP's article refers to, I believe the big deal is that a Citigroup executive basically had his pick of all these positions.

I can't believe the complete media blackout of these emails. Maybe it has changed since a day or two ago, when I checked around, but here's how it stood:

- CNN: zero coverage. top story = Trump accused of groping

- MSNBC: zero coverage. top story = Trump accused of groping

- New York Times: actually mentioned the emails and a bit of their content...in an small article. Below the fold. Titled "Trump Finds Unusual Ally in Wikileaks" which was almost entirely about how Trump's campaign is pleased with the leak, actual content of the emails was only alluded to in a couple of sentences toward the very end of the article.

top story? Trump accused of groping.

My biggest disappointment was the Financial Times - I held out so much hope that they would actually have some integrity and report about these frankly huge stories. Nope. Zero coverage, top US politics story = Trump accused of groping.

The only places I saw that covered were Fox, drudgereport, and Breitbart. I saw RT.com had a story about them today but I don't know if they reported on it two days ago when I checked around.

I haven't seen anything like this outside of state-run newspapers like Pravda...it feels like everyone's taking crazy pills.

Maybe someone can just do an s/Clinton/Trump/g and send them to the Times?