On Sept. 6, 2016, I scanned the Washington Post web page for interesting articles to read. I found 13 articles that were pro-Democrat and two articles that were pro-Republican.

Some of the titles of the articles were obvious: “50-state poll shows why Clinton holds the advantage over Trump,” “Trump dismisses questions about improper gift to Florida attorney general,” and “Honorary’ job at for-profit college paid Bill Clinton millions.” Other articles required reading before classifying either pro-Democrat or pro-Republican.

I cannot criticize the Washington Post articles that attacked Trump. There is so much about him to criticize. However, good journalism should require some balance, which is lacking in the Washington Post and most American news media. A 13 to 2 ratio for Democrats seems consistent in all forms of news.

What’s missing is reporting about Clinton? What about Clinton’s health? (That cough is troubling and the effects of her concussion could linger). Her lying, particularly about her e-mail scandals, is troubling. The Clinton Foundation is troubling.

All these topics are troubling but almost unreported. If Clinton had an (R) behind her name rather than a (D), reporting about her would be entirely different. There is considerable scientific research to support that conclusion. I wrote a column for the Star in June 2011, which draws on that research.

On Sept. 2, just before the Labor Day weekend, the FBI released data about the FBI investigation of Clinton. Four days later, the Washington Post had nothing on its home web page about that, even though there was evidence of obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence. Is this the same paper that investigated Richard Nixon with such fervor in the early 1970s for the same offenses?

Are there no Woodwards and Bernsteins left in journalism? Surely there’s enough material in the Clinton scandals to build a career for some ambitious reporter. But there’s a problem with that.

The problem is, unlike with Nixon, aggressive reporting about Clinton would hurt a nationally known Democrat. Woodward and Bernstein could brag about bringing down Nixon, who was hated by the national press. How could a reporter who brought down Clinton get a job in today’s journalism market?

The number of media outlets that would even consider hiring a reporter with that record is very small. Perhaps, a few newspapers with small circulations and Fox News might be interested.

The few reporters who have ferreted out information about Clinton probably have done their careers no good. They have also probably been dropped off the invitation lists of the East Coast liberal crowd. From the perspective of a Midwesterner, that may not seem that important. To someone who lives on rumors passed around the cognoscente in Washington and New York, that’s critical.

Is the American media more in love with the truth or with Hillary Clinton? So far, the answer is Clinton. Two of her latest lies are classic. Clinton told the FBI that she thought that a (C) did not mean confidential but instead signified a partial alphabetical list (apparently subparagraphs A and B were missing).

Later, she asserted that none of her messages had classification headings; therefore, she’s blameless. That is so preposterous that it would be funny if not so serious. Nobody who has lived in the White House, was a U.S. Senator, and was Secretary of State could be so stupid. I conclude that she believes that we will swallow anything if she says it. The media just shrugs off such classic lies.

Journalists should try extra hard to be impartial this year. That way, when the country suffers, as it will under either candidate, they could claim: I tried to inform the American people, but they wouldn’t listen.

That’s very different from when the next president disappoints us, “Why didn’t the media tell us about President (you fill in the name)?”

 

Michael Waldron is a retired lieutenant colonel, U.S. Army, who was born and raised in Niles. He previously served on the Niles Community School Board of Education. He can be reached at ml.waldron@sbcglobal.net.