Quote:Part of the reason is the link that I posted above.  The media is being "persuaded" by the Clinton campaign to change headlines and change news stories.  Rather than report the actual facts.  News organizations are reporting a "cleansed version" of the facts.  It's all about the wording.

 

Which version is correct?

 

"The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.""

 

or

 

"the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.""

 

That's mincing words, but it changes the implication from the "user" to the "user's email account".

 

How about the headline, which one is more correct?

 

Original headline.

 

"Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email"

 

changed to

 

"Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account".

 

So which is it, Hillary's use of email or her email account?

I see what you're saying. Perhaps I give the general public too much credit in their ability to see through that. I just don't understand how she can be so relatively unfazed in her candidacy with this swirling around her. Perhaps a Clinton supporter can enlighten me? Anyone?

I will agree that the media absolutely is not bringing their full weight down upon her.

---