FBI REOPENS Investigation into Hillary Clinton Emails

[Final-Fan]

Thuglas said:

Yeah fair point he was done, but the thing is the reporter was "tripping over her own words" because a black Trump supporter got to speak. It just shows bias that they don't want people thinking that black people can support Trump without being Uncle Ruckus. But yeah I gave example of both hard evidence and anectdotal and the anectdotal stuff is embarassing to watch. What do you think about those Wikileaks revelations? would those not prove that the media is colluding with Clinton? I will link some of the ones I mentioned.

Politico: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524

"We have has a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed."

Politico journalist to John Podesta (chairman of clinton campaign): https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681

"I will send u the whole section that pertains  to u  Please don't share or tell anyone I did this  Tell me if I fucked up anything"

CNN - Donna Brazile obtains CNN debate question word for word early: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

"From time to time I get the questions in advance" then goes on to leak a CNN debate question to Hillary nearly word for word to cheat in debate against Bernie Sanders.

New York Times journalist asking for approval of an article and Clinton campaign actually does tell her to remove some things: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213

I understand you don't want to believe random videos on Youtube that could be editted a certain way to push a certain view, fine. But what about the things I linked above? surely you can't deny collusion after seeing hard evidence of it? and that was barely the surface of it, there are more examples I didn't link and I suggest looking at H.A Goodman's daily Youtube summary of the wikileaks revelations to get a complete picture of everything revealed in these leaks. Fox News is the only major news outlet to repport FULLY on the John Podesta Wikileaks that have been releasing everyday since about a month ago. It takes a lot of time to understand all of this meaning you will have to be willing to trust the people who have spent countless hours this last month to go through thousands of new emails every day if you want to get a complete picture. If you don't trust FOX's reporting on this issue, try H.A Goodman. If you don't trust H.A Goodman, try Stefan Moleneux.

1.  I do not know what official journalistic standards apply here, but as a layman I think it's a significant overstatement to conclude "collusion" from that email.  I think you'll agree that it's an unavoidable fact that some reporters will be more sympathetic than others to any given candidate, just as voters are.  These would obviously be the ones that a campaign reaches out to for an interview etc.  It is the responsibility of the journalist to be sure she remains sufficiently objective in reporting factual information, and open about whatever relevant opinions she might have, while making sure these two things are clearly separated.  It's possible that any given journalist will fail to live up to standards, but that isn't known from this email IMO.  All we know is that they were happy with the coverage they got. 

For comparison, here's an article alleging that the person in question, Maggie Haberman, was giving Donald Trump the benefit of false equivalence in one of the debates. 

2.  This doesn't sound unlike the standard "I am printing an article about you saying stuff.  Any comment?  Can you refute anything?"

3.  Unquestionably terrible.  Whoever leaked this can definitely be said to have "colluded" with the Clinton campaign.  I do not doubt there are others just as deeply in Republicans' pockets.  Trump has been living and breathing the media for decades, but his area of expertise has been different, so he might be playing catch-up vs. the establishment politicians; but if you think he will operate more uprightly you have another think coming. 

P.S.  About the question that was leaked—they got the math wrong on those statistics!  At least, assuming those people weren't "exonerated and freed" posthumously. 

P.P.S.  While some people in the media may be in Clinton's camp, I certainly think that can't be extrapolated into "the media, generally speaking, is boosting Hillary for partisan reasons".  They have obsessed over her email scandal, at the cost of talking about policy, where her positions are generally more thoroughly articulated than Trump's and often considered more plausible by objective watchdogs (I'm thinking of the economic plans in particular).  In essence, ignoring one of her strong suits.  And of course there has been the infamous amount of free coverage Trump has gotten. 

The organizations that produced these two sources may be biased, but laying aside commentary and inference I think they can be counted on to have quoted their figures correctly: 
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/03/the-media-isnt-for-hillary-clinton-her-emails-have-been-covered-more-than-all-policy-proposals/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/26/study-confirms-network-evening-newscasts-have-abandoned-policy-coverage-2016-campaign/214120
Of course, you may question the way that their source itself achieved its numbers... if you suspect they are inaccurate.