In the final weeks of the presidential campaign, major newspapers are giving former President Donald Trump’s federal criminal indictment for alleged crimes related to the January 6 insurrection a fraction of the coverage they gave former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server in 2016, according to a new Media Matters study. Media Matters reviewed print coverage in five newspapers — Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post — for stories mentioning Trump’s indictment in the week following U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s October 2 unsealing of special counsel Jack Smith’s latest filing, which reveals damning new evidence of the former president’s alleged crimes.  We found the papers ran 26 combined articles mentioning Trump’s indictment in the week after the unsealing of Smith’s filing. But those same papers published 100 combined articles — nearly 4 times as many — that mentioned Clinton’s server in the week after then-FBI Director James Comey’s notorious October 28, 2016, letter on new developments in that probe, as we documented in a 2016 study. The papers ran more than 6 times as many combined front-page stories that mentioned Clinton’s server (46) as they did front-page stories that mentioned Trump’s indictment (7) over those periods. Obsessive news media focus on Clinton’s server in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign helped Trump to victory, even as Comey ultimately reconfirmed that no charges were appropriate in the case. But eight years later, with one presidential candidate facing active prosecution for federal charges related to his attempt to subvert an election, outlets are making different choices.

Report about the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post —

  • 26 Articles in the week following Smith’s indictment of Trump for his attempted coup

  • 100 Articles — nearly 4 times as many — that mentioned Clinton’s server in the week after then-FBI Director James Comey’s notorious October 28, 2016, letter on new developments in that probe–

The US media has learned nothing and is doing a disservice to American voters.

  • basmatiEnglish
    466·
    2 months ago

    The media has been trump badding for the last 9 years straight, what the fuck more do you people want?

      • basmatiEnglish
        321·
        2 months ago

        The media does not have the ability to jail people, and it should not influence justice outcomes.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          132·
          2 months ago

          … I am not even going to explain this to you because you’re obviously too far gone into the cult

          • basmatiEnglish
            111·
            2 months ago

            No, please do explain how you think even more trump coverage, despite him appearing negatively in every media outlets for the last nine years would somehow put him in jail.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              41·
              2 months ago

              I’m good on explaining basic shit to empty shells of humans who are devoid of actual care for anyone but their smug selves.

              • basmatiEnglish
                14·
                2 months ago

                So you can’t, but you want constant trump coverage for the next 200 years. I really dislike you conservatives playing your team sports when actual people need help.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  2 months ago

                  Smugness certainly helps everyone along with hollow bullshit arguments with zero facts behind them

            • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
              31·
              2 months ago

              Not more, honest. Not sanewashing his incoherent ramblings, calling out his fascist rhetoric for what it is, not talking about what tarrifs would mean for pricing in the US, not emphasizing a small issue on Harris’s team while ignoring the couch fucker refusing to say trump won… or letting him off the hook by saying he would have voted against ratifying… there is no vote… it is a ceremonial job.