Wrong or right

A women who constantly gets investigated is not a 'great women'

Boom.

The media and Trump are perfectly symbiotic:  he wants attention, they give it to him, they get ratings.  The subject matter is mostly Trump's own fault. 

If they are symbiotic as you say, then your logic leads that the media is just as guilty. But this thread is about the Clinton emails. You don't see the media hounding after that for ratings. What you just said has an inherent double standard. 

I don't really think so. For example, Hillary Clinton brings up Alicia Machado. If Trump responds then they talk about it for days and it's all his fault for "keeping the story alive" by saying his piece about it. If he doesn't, well, they'll just talk about it for days anyway, only they'll have to find a way to squeeze it into some other, broader story like Trump having trouble with women voters.

Countless times I've seen them say, "Boy, this would be a really bad day for Hillary Clinton if Trump hadn't said X!" As if Trump is making them not talk about Clinton's problems or... I dunno, real issues, maybe. These fuckers have 24 hour networks and act like that means they're only permitted to cover one story per 24 hours, and it is always some frivilous tabloid stuff. Sure, the American corporate media is always dogshit, especially in an election year, but this has to be the most substanceless election cycle in history.

As for ratings, it seems like their ratings have mostly taken a dive after the conventions which is not coincidentally when they started waging full on war against Trump. So I don't think it's really a smart business decision. Except maybe in CNN's case since he threatened to put the kibosh on their merger.

On poll rigging: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

For Florida, the report recommends "consistently monitoring" samples to makes sure they're "not too old" and "has enough African American and Hispanic voters."  Meanwhile, "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.

-  Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
-  On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.

Meanwhile, it's suggested that national polls over sample "key districts / regions" and "ethnic" groups "as needed."

-  General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
-  Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
-  Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed

The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations.  In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:

Research, microtargeting & polling projects
-  Over-sample Hispanics
-  Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
-  Over-sample the Native American population

I don't know about you but I thought the emails got plenty of coverage at the time.  You can't expect a single scandal that drags out for months and months to get as much sustained attention as 12 scandals from the other side in the same time period get in total.  Clinton has had more than one thing but the point stands.  They gave Clinton's "deplorables" comment considerable coverage, even misconstruing it to her detriment making it sound worse than it was. 

My personal thought on the subject of the 24 hour news paradigm is that it actually makes things worse, because they are so desperate to fill that time that they build their news teams around padding the clock.  Not only does this take resources away from better journalism, but they don't necessarily pad evenly.  So, to completely start making up numbers to make a point, if there was a story that deserved half an hour out of six hours, maybe they'd pad it to two hours out of twenty-four; and if there was a story that deserved an hour, but it was really juicy and they could pad it out more easily, maybe it would get 8 hours!  And then there's just plain ridiculous, like CNN and its infamous coverage of the disappearance of MH370. 

I mean that was a terrible illustration, but I think you can see the general idea I'm trying to get across.  24 hour news is cancer.  Trump's mouth has AIDS.  You do the math. 

(I say that, but his business history is no better.  Clinton, at least, has had decades of practice at withstanding this intensity of attention; that's why her big scandal in the news is something recent, while a lot of what's hurting Trump happened a long time ago.  He hasn't had people digging through his closet for skeletons at the level you get in a presidential race.) 

Does it also show that they weren't controlling the oversample back down before finishing the poll? 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/the-clinton-polling-conspiracy-that-doesnt-exist/505211/

I mean, this email is from 2008.  If Democrats were manipulating the polls all this time, how did we get these 2012 results? 
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

While there could be some propaganda value to a lopsided poll, the FIRST reason a campaign wants a poll is to know the actual truth, so that they can allocate campaign resources in the best way. If they were trying to create rotten results, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

I like how the first Hillary defense isn't a defense, but a deflection to Trump.

Not everyone who hates Hillary loves Trump. Many just want her indicted so we can get the nominee we wanted, Bernie.