The latest poll reveals that in the past two months, Hillary Clinton has experienced a 29% drop in the amount of female, Democratic voters that pledged their support to her. This decline in support directly coincides with the FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton's email controversy and the media spotlight on her less-than-apologetic responses to this incident (Link). I assert that this correlation not only shows that what the reporters choose to spotlight in the news affects political outcomes, but also that this emailing scandal should have been handled differently by news outlets.
Although the media may have fulfilled their role as "watchdogs" by thoroughly bringing the Hillary Clinton email 'scandal' to the forefront of the public's attention, they also proved that reporters can change national opinion with their journalistic choices. It seems that this story just garnered too much attention, was too harped on, too overly publicized, and too talked about. For example, Fox News boasted a video segment entitled "Woodward Compares Clinton Emails to Nixon Tapes." The video briefly shows Woodward saying this emailing incident kind of "reminds him" of the tapes, and the Fox reporters go on to defend the fact that Clinton's scandal is very reminiscent of the Watergate scandal
(VidLink)
Her emails which have, so far shown nothing criminal, are being likened in this media source to a major presidential political scandal. It really shows that the media can choose headlines and can thereby choose to make an issue bigger and more serious than it really is. This has resounding effects into the political arena, especially on Clinton's campaign it would seem.
For instance, the polls show that many white democratic women, specifically, have chosen to abandon their hope that Hillary would be the first female president. When interviewed in New Hampshire and Ohio, women said that they no longer will vote for Hillary for reasons such as that they don't trust her or her judgment any longer. One woman, as quoted in the above Washington Post article, says of Hillary, “I don’t think she’s honest. I just don’t want the drama we had for eight years, and we’ve already seen it”(Link).
It would seem that now, Hillary Clinton, is associated with distrust, poor judgment, and even "drama." Many argue that this email scandal is just another way for journalists to continue their "existing narratives" about the non-transparent Clinton family(HuffPost). Meanwhile, Politico calls the emails a "cancer" on Clinton's campaign and a graph in its article demonstrates that over the past few months since the scandal broke, Clinton's polling average visibly declined nearly 20%. (Graph). There is evidently a clear correlation between the scandal and her declining support.
Had her choice to use her personal email not been so publicized for so long, and demanded so much attention, Clinton likely would not be seen in such a harsh light and her polls would likely not have experiences such a decline.The "drama" was created by the media as they took this story and blew it up for far too long. For instance, many media outlets continually posted updates about the scandal that yielded no new information such as ones that stated that she will 'continue to be investigated.' Her emailing 'scandal' just dominated headlines despite the arrival of any new, relevant information for the public. I believe the media should have reported on the initial issue as it arose, refrained from bombarding the public with speculative/opinionated pieces like the Watergate video (for example), and only reported about Clinton's emails when they actually had relevant, new information for the public. Speculation about what 'could' be in her emails instead dominated the media.
It is my personal opinion that while Clinton's choice to use her personal email, out of convenience, over her government email, was not a wise decision on her part, it also is not as heavy a topic as the media makes it out to be. It is certainly no Watergate. She offered full transparency of this personal email account and did nothing in secret. Yet, this story, ever-present in the media, has tarnished her reputation among certain citizens who have likely constantly seen the story printed.
If this incident were as politically condemning as the media makes it out to be, Clinton would likely be under more assault by her professional peers. However, when asked about the emailing controversy, Clinton said that no one talks to her about it, "except you guys" in reference to the reporters.
While I certainly don't wish to belittle the weight of Clinton's poor decision on the public's trust of government officials, and while I also respect the media's watchdog behavior in bringing this oversight to light, I also think that certain figures and certain situations are overly-publicized. Clinton is constantly insulted in the media for her unlikeable nature, and this just seemed like another tag-along attack on a woman who may not be the best at being camera-personable, but is also not the untrustworthy, drama-surrounded, public-trust enemy that this barrage of reporter attention on her email scandal has made her out to be.
As the Washington Post article and the Politico graphs show, the media attention about this scandal is directly linked to Clinton's sharp decline in the polls. This truly illustrates the power of journalists to determine public opinion, whether its fair or not. However, some may argue that Clinton brought this upon herself- she didn't follow protocol, she deserved the shame, she committed the crime and it is merely being reported on. I disagree. This email scandal has haunted her for the past few months because of the relentless media attention. Does her mistake necessitate that amount of coverage, an amount of coverage that has lost her many long-time supporters? I don't think it does.
