You had to know that this was coming. In the wild search to find the real reason (as if we haven't found it yet) for Hillary Clinton's failed presidential bid, now comes this cockamamie assertion:
The gropers and the sexual harassers did it.
This preposterous assertion was made by Jill Filipovic in a New York Times op-ed, "The Men Who Cost Clinton the Election." For utter cluelessness, you might as well have blamed George Bush or a full moon. She wrote:
Many of the male journalists who stand accused of sexual
harassment were on the forefront of covering the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Matt Lauer interviewed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump in an official “commander-in-chief forum” for NBC. He notoriously peppered and interrupted Mrs. Clinton with cold, aggressive, condescending questions hyper-focused on her emails, only to pitch softballs at Mr. Trump and treat him with gentle collegiality a half-hour later. Mark Halperin and Charlie Rose set much of the televised political discourse on the race, interviewing other pundits, opining themselves and obsessing over the electoral play-by-play. Mr. Rose, after the election, took a tone similar to Mr. Lauer’s with Mrs. Clinton — talking down to her, interrupting her, portraying her as untrustworthy. Mr. Halperin was a harsh critic of Mrs. Clinton, painting her as ruthless and corrupt, while going surprisingly easy on Mr. Trump. The reporter Glenn Thrush, currently on leave from The New York Times because of sexual harassment allegations, covered Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign when he was at Newsday and continued to write about her over the next eight years for Politico.
Ah, come on.
For a more rational and balanced analysis, I recommend Jim Warren in the Poynter Morning Mediawire ("Did sex harassing-reporters cause Clinton to lose the election?") Warren, the Chief Media Writer at The Poynter Institute and a former colleague of mine at the Chicago Sun-Times, wrote:
[Filipovic] asserts that "many" of those charged with sexual harassment were "on the forefront" of coverage during the election and thus influential. Then this:
"A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable. These recent harassment allegations suggest that perhaps the problem wasn’t that Mrs. Clinton was untruthful or inherently hard to connect with, but that these particular men hold deep biases against women who seek power instead of sticking to acquiescent sex-object status."
Warren, as the good reporter that he is, goes on to interview journalism scholars. They basically said: Really?
For all the favoritism shown to the Clintons by so many in the media, this one is a stunner.