Is a media reckoning looming for Hillary?

Conservatives who despise the MSM often forget that journalists are human beings, too, and one thing that journalists hate is being played for patsies.  People go into journalism in part to demonstrate their penetrating acumen, able to explain to others what really is happening.  Being played in public threatens their self-concept.

The mainstream media may be populated by progressives, but there are residual pockets of professional integrity left.  There are signs that blinders may be slipping from the eyes of some at the pinnacle of MSM prestige, now that they know they have been manipulated and deceived.

For example, Callum Borchers, a reporter, not an opinion journalist, for the Washington Post, called out the Hillary campaign for double-dealing after BuzzFeed first published the Steele Dossier that we now know Hillary's people paid for.

When BuzzFeed published that now-infamous dossier of unproven claims about Donald Trump and Russia, in January, former Hillary Clinton campaign aides expressed outrage that news outlets that had obtained the dossier before Election Day did not make its contents public in time to influence voters, and Clinton later aired the same grievance in her book about the presidential race. ...

The Clinton camp left out its own role in the dossier's creation, as it ripped the media for sitting on information that journalists had been unable to verify. What Clinton and her advisers presented as their judgment that the media had made the wrong call was, in fact, their frustration at having failed to plant negative news reports before ballots were cast.

Another way of expressing this thought is that they were playing the media for fools.

Clinton press aides Brian Fallon and Nick Merrill contended, on Twitter, that the real journalistic malpractice was not publishing information contained in the dossier earlier.

This was long rumored during the campaign, and many reporters know at least some of what Russia was alleged to have https://t.co/3TWqOOYake

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) January 10, 2017

Today has brought a gush of reporting that outlets knew about and sat on prior to November 8
cc: @GlenCaplin1https://t.co/XXW7aS8NL4

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) January 11, 2017

I repeat: certain media outlets were told this prior to November 8.https://t.co/CX63guAJEB

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) January 11, 2017

Borchers traces other "disingenuous dossier outrage" from Hillary, including even a reference to the Steele Dossier in her book What Happened:

The FBI also began investigating a dossier prepared by a well-respected former British spy that contained explosive and salacious allegations about compromising information the Russians had on Trump. The intelligence community took the dossier seriously enough that it briefed both President Obama and President-elect Trump on its contents before the inauguration.

Borchers points out:

Note that Clinton described the dossier only as having been "prepared by a well-respected former British spy" – as if the spy, Christopher Steele, had acted on his own. Clinton certainly gave no indication that her campaign helped finance his work.

In the vernacular, she's trying to sucker us.

She is still out promoting her book.  Will anyone ask her why she concealed her own role?

Nobody likes being played for a fool.  Certainly not Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, who tweeted out:

Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year https://t.co/vXKRV1wRJc

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 24, 2017

The words "with sanctimony" reveal the outrage.

Her colleague Kenneth Vogel was equally displeased:

When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong." https://t.co/B5BZwoaNhI

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) October 24, 2017

Right now, the MSM are ignoring the story as much as possible, but the cofferdam has too many leaks.  The presence of aggrieved name-brand reporters at the NYT and WaPo is important, because their work cannot be dismissed as Fox News or Breitbart.  The two papers operate as pilot fish for the rest of the media.

But even more importantly, there will be subpoenas, hearings, and eventually testimony.

Real events will happen.

And we have a president of the United States who will keep talking and tweeting about it.

Senator Grassley is calling for a special counsel on Uranium One.

Best of all, the storyline is clear.  The Clintons took in $140 million, and national security was jeopardized.  And she's been lying to us to our faces.

Conservatives who despise the MSM often forget that journalists are human beings, too, and one thing that journalists hate is being played for patsies.  People go into journalism in part to demonstrate their penetrating acumen, able to explain to others what really is happening.  Being played in public threatens their self-concept.

The mainstream media may be populated by progressives, but there are residual pockets of professional integrity left.  There are signs that blinders may be slipping from the eyes of some at the pinnacle of MSM prestige, now that they know they have been manipulated and deceived.

For example, Callum Borchers, a reporter, not an opinion journalist, for the Washington Post, called out the Hillary campaign for double-dealing after BuzzFeed first published the Steele Dossier that we now know Hillary's people paid for.

When BuzzFeed published that now-infamous dossier of unproven claims about Donald Trump and Russia, in January, former Hillary Clinton campaign aides expressed outrage that news outlets that had obtained the dossier before Election Day did not make its contents public in time to influence voters, and Clinton later aired the same grievance in her book about the presidential race. ...

The Clinton camp left out its own role in the dossier's creation, as it ripped the media for sitting on information that journalists had been unable to verify. What Clinton and her advisers presented as their judgment that the media had made the wrong call was, in fact, their frustration at having failed to plant negative news reports before ballots were cast.

Another way of expressing this thought is that they were playing the media for fools.

Clinton press aides Brian Fallon and Nick Merrill contended, on Twitter, that the real journalistic malpractice was not publishing information contained in the dossier earlier.

This was long rumored during the campaign, and many reporters know at least some of what Russia was alleged to have https://t.co/3TWqOOYake

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) January 10, 2017

Today has brought a gush of reporting that outlets knew about and sat on prior to November 8
cc: @GlenCaplin1https://t.co/XXW7aS8NL4

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) January 11, 2017

I repeat: certain media outlets were told this prior to November 8.https://t.co/CX63guAJEB

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) January 11, 2017

Borchers traces other "disingenuous dossier outrage" from Hillary, including even a reference to the Steele Dossier in her book What Happened:

The FBI also began investigating a dossier prepared by a well-respected former British spy that contained explosive and salacious allegations about compromising information the Russians had on Trump. The intelligence community took the dossier seriously enough that it briefed both President Obama and President-elect Trump on its contents before the inauguration.

Borchers points out:

Note that Clinton described the dossier only as having been "prepared by a well-respected former British spy" – as if the spy, Christopher Steele, had acted on his own. Clinton certainly gave no indication that her campaign helped finance his work.

In the vernacular, she's trying to sucker us.

She is still out promoting her book.  Will anyone ask her why she concealed her own role?

Nobody likes being played for a fool.  Certainly not Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, who tweeted out:

Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year https://t.co/vXKRV1wRJc

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 24, 2017

The words "with sanctimony" reveal the outrage.

Her colleague Kenneth Vogel was equally displeased:

When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong." https://t.co/B5BZwoaNhI

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) October 24, 2017

Right now, the MSM are ignoring the story as much as possible, but the cofferdam has too many leaks.  The presence of aggrieved name-brand reporters at the NYT and WaPo is important, because their work cannot be dismissed as Fox News or Breitbart.  The two papers operate as pilot fish for the rest of the media.

But even more importantly, there will be subpoenas, hearings, and eventually testimony.

Real events will happen.

And we have a president of the United States who will keep talking and tweeting about it.

Senator Grassley is calling for a special counsel on Uranium One.

Best of all, the storyline is clear.  The Clintons took in $140 million, and national security was jeopardized.  And she's been lying to us to our faces.