Rieder: Apply same scrutiny to Clinton,
Trump’s shortcomings no excuse to slack on coverage of Democrat
We’ll stipulate that it’s hard to imagine a major party presidential candidate who needs as much scrutiny as Donald Trump.
Unlike his rival, Hillary Clinton, who has been under a media microscope for decades, Trump jumped into the race tabula rasa as far as a political track record is concerned. He has since shown a penchant for firing off incendiary one-liners of doubtful veracity. He has exhibited few signs that he has the chops or the gravitas to serve as the leader of the free world, let alone be entrusted with the nuclear codes. And reporting on his adventures in business has raised questions about his vaunted management skills. His refusal to release his income tax records like everyone else does is not exactly cause for reassurance.
But that hardly means Clinton should get a free pass. As the drip-drip-drip controversies over her private email server and the Clinton Foundation underscore, there is plenty to examine in Clinton’s past.
Nevertheless, there is a school of thought that says regardless of Clinton’s foibles, the Trump threat is so serious that no one should get too worked up about them. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd alluded to this point of view over the weekend.
“Many people,” Dowd wrote, “believe that Trump is so demented and dangerous that any criticism of Hillary should be tabled or suppressed, that her malfeasance is so small compared to his that it is not worth mentioning.” A point of view, as Dowd points out, that couldn’t be more off base.
That’s simply not the way it works. Everyone running for the White House needs, to borrow a Trumpism, extreme vetting.
It’s hardly the press’ job to designate winners and losers. Yes, Trump, after floating on a sea of free media to the GOP nomination, has been the subject of an enormous amount of negative coverage in recent weeks — coverage brought on entirely by his own outrageous words and deeds.
It may seem like the media is piling on. But what’s the alternative? Picking fights with Gold Star parents? Seeking help from the Russians in tracking down Clinton’s emails? Seemingly asking Second Amendment fans to grab their weapons and stop his foe? Flip-flopping on immigration, Trump’s signature issue? Enlisting the head of a fringeish, hatespewing website as CEO of your campaign? And on and on? You don’t cover the hell out of that, you are so in the wrong business.
In fact, Trump’s utter lack of message discipline has been a huge plus for Clinton. His penchant for the outrage of the day has on occasion, understandably, diverted attention from the latest flare-up over the emails.
There is a tendency among Clinton supporters to raise the cry of false equivalence when their candidate is criticized over the emails or the foundation. You’re worried about this small potatoes stuff when Trump is asking why we aren’t using nuclear weapons?
But raising legitimate questions about a candidate’s record is hardly the same as suggesting an equivalence. A misstep hardly has to be death penalty-worthy to deserve attention. And make no mistake, Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server while secretary of State is a real deal, apologists to the contrary.
While the feds decided not to prosecute Clinton, FBI Director James Comey said he found evidence that she and her associates “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
What’s more, Clinton’s defensive, grudging, oft-shifting statements about the kerfuffle have only reinforced one of her major vulnerabilities: the notion that she is a slippery character at times unwilling or unable to level.
Similarly, recent disclosures about the Clinton Foundation show this also is a fertile area for research. Emails in which foundation honcho Doug Band is shown seeking favors from State for heavy donors have a creepy air to them. There is no smoking gun at this point showing specific government actions seemingly purchased by the donors. But the appearance of donors being able to buy access is troubling enough.
The Clinton Foundation said this month it would forgo foreign and corporate donations if Clinton is elected, underscoring the conflict-of-interest potential while she was secretary of State.
As for what comes next, who knows what WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has in mind for his next document dump? And talk about strange bedfellows: Who ever dreamed Assange would become such a valuable apparatchik for The Donald?
But one thing is for sure: With just over two months to go, this remarkable, unsavory campaign has plenty of twists and turns left. It’s incumbent on the media to give both candidates the probing coverage they require.
Everyone running for the White House needs, to borrow a Trumpism, extreme vetting. ... It’s incumbent on the media to give both candidates the probing coverage they require.