Topic: Media Research Center
The headline of Media Research Center writer Kristine Marsh's July 5 post reads "'Obviously' Clinton Wouldn't Be Charged; Right is Just 'Bitter,' Claim Journalists on Twitter." But instead of arguing that right-wingers like herself really weren't "bitter about Hillary Clinton not being charged over her email controversy, Marsh instead proved justy how bitter she is by her sneering attacks on those "journalists" who commented:
- "Paul Krugman, columnist for the elitist The New York Times had his own snotty tweet ready"
- "CNN analyst Van Jones snappily replied"
- "Jamil Smith of MTV News dismissed the whole scandal in one crass tweet"
While Marsh was also suggesting that the "journalists" she quoted were supposed to be objective, most of them, like Krugman, Jones and Amanda Marcotte, are opinion writers. March very easily could have found conservative "journalists" similarly spouting off.
Marsh also complained that Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel "mocked the GOP" by commenting, "Who’ll be the first elected to call on the GOP Congress to create a special counsel and probe Clinton’s email again?" he was proven right by House Republicans hauling FBI director James Comey before a committee to explain himself, then declaring that the issue would not die due to the committee giving the FBI a referral "in the next few hours" to investigate whether Clinton lied to the FBI, something Marsh's fellow MRC employees at CNSNews.com proudly reported.
Marxh ended her post with one last bitter salvo: "The media’s readiness to quickly dismiss yet another Clinton scandal proves that their attitude towards Clinton hasn’t changed since the days where she characterized her critics as part of a 'vast right-wing conspiracy.'" Of course, there was such a thing, and Marsh's employer was one of the organizations involved with it.
