The national media appears committed to embarrassing itself with a barrage of
speculation-driven stories drawing on an
error-laden book by Peter Schweizer, a Republican operative with a
long history of retractions. Outlets like the
New York Times and
Washington Post seem to have decided that they prefer covering Republican opposition research to covering Clinton's actual campaign. Which is why we see
a divide opening up between national coverage and local coverage.
Two days out, the national press is writing about none of the Clinton campaign's favorite topics: not about her small-scale opening, not about her earnest efforts to listen to the concerns of "everyday Americans," and not much about her New Hampshire trip at all. Instead, the political world is dissecting a New York Times story about donors to the Clinton Foundation getting approval from the Clinton-run State department to sell their uranium rights to Russia—and the national media is awaiting the Clinton Cash book that will continue in that vein.
By contrast:
The front page of Wednesday's Concord Monitor was headlined: "In the Spotlight: Clinton attracts crowds, attention as she swings through city." And the week before, she'd fared even better: "Clinton vows she'll help people get ahead," read the front page of the April 15 Des Moines Register. The Quad City Times was gentle as well: "Clinton surprises LeClaire coffee shop."
Perhaps more importantly, local Democratic activists professed to have come away energized, excited to have had face-to-face time with their party's most-important candidate: "It's Hillary. It's a big deal for a Democratic activist to sit down at a coffee shop and meet her," Des Moines activist Peggy Huppert told BuzzFeed. "This is what the campaign wanted — this kind of buzz."
Often, the contrast between local and national reporting doesn't reflect so well on the local level. But when it comes to Hillary Clinton, local reporters are looking at what she's doing and saying and how voters are responding to her. National reporters are looking at opposition research and dedicating dozens of paragraphs to
shoddy, speculative crap. The good news is, some national outlets are
starting to figure out that, while the
New York Times may be putting its reputation on the line over
Clinton Cash, the reality is that the evidence against Clinton is "not impressive," that there's "no proof" and "no smoking gun," that there's "little evidence" of Schweizer's allegations.