No, issue is what drove media coverage, in scale, scope and content, pre-election.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @DavidCornDC and
it isn't the media's job to run a campaign against Trump. That was Clinton's role.
18 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @maggieNYT
Media's role was to explore unprecedented issue: conflict-of-interest, in proportion. They did email server to COI about 5 to 1.
3 replies 20 retweets 62 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @maggieNYT
Not arguing they should have run against Trump. On the contrary. They should have reported on key issues for Clinton AND Trump.
1 reply 5 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
and I think media did a better job than you're allowing for. Not saying there weren't mistakes. But also, a favorite pt of some is
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @maggieNYT @zeynep
blaming NYT solely for emails. That chart you're citing has several times more coverage of it in WaPo.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @maggieNYT
Not blaming, not solely. I put both WaPo & Politico there—I thought they were particularly bad. NYT wasn't great either.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @maggieNYT
I think we should move away from blame (or voters or campaign) and focus on: what dynamics led to this state of coverage?
2 replies 2 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @maggieNYT
Those dynamics exist going forward; old way of doing journalism will cause repeat. Especially important for editorial staff.
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @maggieNYT
Resource allocation; making case to readers why they should sub; choosing what to highlight, focus & not; headlines; forecasts...
2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes
I should write this longer. I'm genuinely not arguing outcome change—cannot know, multi-factor, etc. But media is not irrelevant.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.