A Lesson in Trust

Yesterday, the Daily Mail out of the UK ran a story asking whether Hillary Clinton had brought a personal doctor to the 9/11 memorial. There were lots of photos of this woman with her right before her collapse, and doing things that were plausibly field diagnostic tests such as checking her pulse or having Clinton squeeze her fingers.

Turns out, she was a PR aide (and former State Department employee), so it's not what it looked like.

The New York Post describes this as the Mail "mistakenly" describing her as a nurse, but the Mail headline is explicitly asking whether or not she is a doctor. She apparently looks somewhat like Hillary's actual doctor, the one who later gave the statement about her pneumonia.

In any case, the reason outlets like the Mail are quite right to ask these questions is just that the Clinton campaign has proven it can't be trusted to provide answers. Clinton supporters will want to say, "See? This is how conspiracy theories start!" Well, yes, it is, but not with journalists asking questions. They start with powerful people who hide truths. If you don't want conspiracy theories, try transparency.

1 comment:

Ymar Sakar said...

The UK Daily Mail actually behave like nosy journalists.

Journalists are annoying and sometimes unethical even. But what saved them was that they served a purpose. I wonder what purpose the US propaganda branches serve now.

Much of the popular culture I read from, portray journalists as problematic precisely because they are too curious and out to release info that is hidden. And yet... looking at the US media, their cover up potential was far greater than whatever blame they managed to pin on Nixon, after they were manipulated into doing so by the FBi sub director, Deep Throat.