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. 

Goodman appears to have a giant rage-boner for Clinton. He might be a good place to find what the worst accusations against Clinton are, but I'd have to sift the real evidence from his fantasies of the FBI dragging Clinton away in chains. I don't have reason to distrust Molyneux on this specific subject, but from what I know of him I would certainly not take his word. He and Fox News are pretty much in the same boat to me: they might give me valuable information, but I need to be cautious.

FBI drops 2nd Investigation into Hillary Clinton

On an unrelated note, an anonymous donation was made to the FBI.

So do you classify all of those examples as "fact checking with the Clinton campaign"? How about the New York times journalist I linked that allowed Clinton campaign to edit out one of his opinions? He mentioned Sarah Palin in the article and the Clinton campaign told him to remove it. I can only assume they do not want Clinton to be associated with SP in any way but that is beyond trying to be "objective". That is a clear example to want to portrey Clinton a certain way and had nothing to do with fact checking. You take this as good journalism? Do you think NYT, CNN and Politico contacts Trump campaign when writing stories about Donald Trump and allow edits or fact cheaking? You think they are fair enough to let Trump project his own ideas in secret then they sign off on it as if it is their own?

You claim there must be others leaking questions to Trump too. okay provide proof. anything. When you are faced with undeniable proof of cheating, you immediately assume Republicans must be doing it too because of what? That is a clear bias that leads you to assume that the democratic party can not possible be worse than the Republican party in anyway no matter if there is clear cut proof. This is something I see all the time with Hillary supporters. Sorry to bring in the whole "Hillary supporters always do this" type argument but I truely believe what you did is equal to the all to common argument of "it is just dirty politics, all politicians do it". No, not at all. There is evidence of Clinton campaign cheating, there isn't any (atleast none you have provided or that I have seen) of Trump cheating this election. What has been exposed of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign is FAR above the level of corruption exposed for any other presidential politician in a long time. this is not the norm, get that idea out of your head.

About the article you linked - A journalist using a fallacy to elevate Trump is not proof of collusion. That is simply a Trump favoring journalist giving a fallacious argument. I am not saying any of the people I mentioned previously are colluding with Clinton because they use fallacious arguements, I am saying they are colluding because we have proof that they communicate with the Clinton campaign in secrecy to either cheat or help push a narrative HRC wants. If I were to use weak arguments as proof of collusion, then I would use the fact that majority of all reporter respond to Wikileaks arguements with Russia scapegoating which is simply not a counter argument. I didn't use the fact that 96% of media campaign donations went to Clinton as proof of collusion. I didn't use the fact that Donald Trump sexual assault accusations got 23x more airtime than the Podesta Wikileaks emails even though the public care much more about that (Clinton polls dropped more due to wikileaks than Trump due to accusations) as collusion.

There is still much more wikileaks examples, like I said it is hard to keep track of them. List of 65 top Mainstream media journalist invited to 2 Private "off the record" dinners at Clinton campaign house about "framing the HRC message and framing the race" http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/  No Fox news journalist went. Large collections of journalist meeting to learn how they should "frame the HRC message" two days before she announced she was running seems a little sketchy. It almost certainly show they are being told a collective message of what they need to do in favor of Clinton and what narrative the MSM needs to push

side note: You do not trust anybody reporting on the Wikileaks emails? I was simply giving a suggestion since 10,000s of emails are hard to read through by yourself. If you aren't willing to trust anybody critical of HRC (yes most who knows the full contents of these leaks WILL MOST LIKELY no longer support Clinton) then you likely will never know the full extent of HRC coruption.

Briefly: 

No, I do not think they were ALL just fact checking.  You didn't read my post very carefully, did you?  I numbered my points according to the three instances you cited.  One of them I called "definitely collusion".  (Paraphrasing, not direct quote)

For another thing, the person you claim colluded with Clinton in the first instance is the SAME PERSON you also just now claimed was "a Trump favoring journalist".  Can you explain why these two things would simultaneously be true? 

Read my post for real, get back to me, then I'll respond in more detail. 

- I lumped all of the one you didn't call "definite collusion" together and addressed that one seperately. You claimed the CNN leaking debate question was collusion but refused to believe it proved anything because "Republicans do it to" without having any proof of that. I know you didn't call the CNN one a matter of "simple fact checking" which is why I addressed it seperately. I used poor wording by saying "all of those examples" but you should know that I obviously didn't mean the CNN example since I addressed it seperately with an entire paragraph dedicated to it.

- My mistake, Yes I didn't read that part fully because from a glance it looked like you were using a journalist using a fallacy as proof of someone colluding. Okay but one instance of her defending Trump does not negate the fact that she gets into contact with Clinton campaign to "tee up" stories for them. Like I said, I didn't base collusion off individual arguments presented by these journalist so one arguement in favor of Trump doesn't necessarily mean everything (although it does make me question my stance as I see your point). To me, what motivated my arguement is the secrecy  of the journalist forming their opinion behind closed doors with DIRECT influence from the people they are supposed to be unbiased towards. But I see your point, this is definately the weakest example out of the ones I provided

okay please address the points you skipped

1. Clinton campaign editing out journalist mention of Sarah Palin in a HRC article.

2. Do you think Trump gets this same "fact checking" priviledge from these people? If not, would they no longer be good journalist for NOT fact checking?

3. Can you provide any reason why you assume leaking debate questions happens on both sides? Are you implying Trump cheats here too?

4. 65 top journalist from every major news organization, except FOX, attended secret dinners at Clinton campaign exec's house. The 2 dinners were about "framing the HRC  message and the race" two days before HRC announced she was running for President.

5. So you are not going to learn about the wikileak emails because you do not trust anyone reporting on it? I simply provided 3 known sources to help summarize the tens of thousands of emails for you. ofcourse the people reporting on it fully do not like Hillary, if you know the contents of these emails then you will see why. With that logic you will NEVER find a source that satisfies you. You need to be willing to listen to the opposing side for a second. I have been reading about these emails for the past month and every single source that goes into detail on them have are understandably anti-Hillary.

I was initially Hillary leaning, then I read the email that showed Hillary in her own words claiming "suadi Arabia and Qatar are providing logistical and financial support to ISIL and other radical suni groups in the region", Then i saw a link to the Clinton foundation website showing  they took 25mil from Saudi Arabia. Add to that the email that showed Bill Clinton taking 1Mil from the Qatar government in secret and not reporting it. Now consider Hillary pushed for the multi Billion dollar arms deals with Suadi Arabia as Secretary of State. She pushed the sale of billions worth of weapons to governments SHE KNEW were funding ISIS. She took massive donations to the Clinton foundation (one donation was kept secret) from groups SHE KNEW funds ISIS. She also kept her knowledge of Saudi and  Qatar funding ISIS secret. Now I purposely didn't include any speculation over her motives as I want to point out as strongly as possible that nothing here is "theory" only very strong evidence. You can form your own theories but to me, I can't possibly see how anybody can anybody come to any other conclusion than something really morally reprehensable. I know this isn't about media bias, but I wanted to show you exactly why people who report on this in detail have "rage-boners" like H.A Goodman and Stefan Molyneux (he gets pretty angry talking about this stuff too). It is completely justified and this isn't even getting into detail of SOOOO many other horrible things like what the Clinton Foundation did to Haiti. Anti-Hillary people do get angry at the very thought of her getting away with such disturbing acts. I dont know why you think they get angry but I assure you it is not because they are not "just so pro trump" or sexist or conservative or anything like that.

1.  From the earlier text of the email it appears that the things in question were said "off the record" and the reporter was asking for permission to put it "on the record".  Obviously if reporters took the position that "absolutely anything I hear come out of your mouth, I consider myself free to print", politicians would speak a lot less freely.  So they let them speak "off the record" and most of it is still stuff they are willing to let print.  And obviously if it is some kind of gigantic bombshell that the public absolutely needs to know I'd expect a good journalist to break this convention, but realize that it would probably end their days of talking with politicians. 

On the other hand, I do question why anyone would agree to do what sounds like an entire interview off the record.  If they sit down for an interview I think the expectation that a reporter is free to print it is reasonable. 

But, you know, it wasn't like there was too much here.  She didn't verbally assault Palin here, but she made a joke at her expense, and I think it's one that you might reasonably want to do in private but not in public.  Doing it in public could be seen as an attack by some people instead of poking fun, and Clinton is a little paranoid. 

2.  Yes, I would expect that Trump gets sent a lot of material with offers or requests for him to comment on it.  If they do it with Clinton but not Trump, that is suspicious. 

3.  Well, I admit I am going on the idea that Republicans leak things like crazy sometimes and that certain news organizations are very pro-Republican.  However, I will admit that none of the coverage I've seen has mentioned a comparable incident by Republican leaning news workers.  Maybe it's a one way street.  And this particular person was already on the way out for another case of peddling backdoor information to a Democratic campaign when this leaked (forget if it was Clinton).  (If I remember the story right she was on leave to be with the campaign and CNN wasn't taking her back.)  So I suppose it's possible this is a unique case. 

P.S.  In the other case, she didn't get the info from her CNN colleagues but got it from the TV station.  Perhaps something similar happened here (was the question read from teleprompter?) 

4.  How secret were they? 

5.  I presume that there is someone looking through the emails that is not as crazy as the ones you mentioned.  But I am extremely busy right now.  I will find a reputable source in due time.  "Anti-Hillary" is fine as long as they don't let it affect their judgment as is CLEARLY the case for Goodman.  You said Fox has someone investigating them?  I'll check that out. 

Get ready for it to open back up, guys.