Media Complain About Hillary's Secrecy But Won't Do Anything About It
Likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is currently racking up money and awards on a speaking tour that is so secretive, it has the media grousing. Not only have the media been barred from the speeches, but “Convention officials banned all video and sound recording, social media, and naturally, journalists[.]"
At the Washington Post, media reporter Erik Wemple writes that this is not first instance of hyper-secrecy committed by our former Secretary of State:
The situation in Atlanta, after all, echoes the situation that unfolded last month in Miami, where Clinton gave a speech to a group of travel agents, and security momentarily confiscated the cell phone of an attendee who had the gall to take photos and video.
After noting that New York Times political reporter Nick Confessore believes that this secrecy allows Hillary to keep the same speech fresh for each new audience, Wemple concludes…
The secrecy facilitates robust speaking fees while at the same time trampling the dissemination of information.
Politico and the Atlanta-Journal Constitution have also found Hillary's secrecy noteworthy.
Before I go any further, let me first say that I'm on Hillary's side here. She is a private citizen and if she wants to keep her speaking engagements secret, she has every right to do so.
But obviously, some in media are not happy with all of this, which only leads me to wonder if they will do anything about it. If Clinton were a Republican, there is no question the media would make her pay a political price for this secrecy. But she is not.
Obviously, Hillary wants to be our next president, which gives the media extraordinary leverage when it comes to getting what they want from her. A relentless and potentially damaging Media Narrative about her excessive secrecy could go a long way towards convincing Clinton to offer the media what they want -- access to these speeches. Moreover, it would let Clinton know that she can't take glowing media coverage for granted -- which, again, would ensure the media are treated better during any potential campaign and administration.
But I suspect that just like the ceaseless whining we hear from the media about the way Barack Obama treats them, in the end, the media will do nothing to force Clinton to change her ways. Because to actually do something effective risks damaging her politically, which in turn benefits Republicans; and among the media that is a much bigger sin than the "trampling the dissemination of information."
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC