Revising the rules

Now that the mainstream media is again being called out for adhering to the "Clinton Rules" regarding their campaign coverage, the weasel words are being used again to defend papers like the NYT.  The paper of record has engaged in Clinton bashing for almost 30 years, and there latest reporting on the Clinton Foundation builds on that reputation.   The fact the foundation takes money from foreign governments and applies it to charitable and activist causes around the world gets coverage, but not for the altruistic aspects of its mission.  The "appearance" of conflict or the "optics" of Hillary as Secretary of State meeting donors to the Foundation is all the story they had.  So, instead of spiking it, or at least admitting there was no smoke or fire, the paper ran a story of innuendo instead of fact.  Meanwhile, the timing of a Trump Foundation donation to the PAC supporting the attorney general of Florida just days before the announcement the state would not be joining New York in a lawsuit against the now defunct Trump University got little or no coverage by the media.  The blowback of these stories is starting a little soul-searching on the part of some reporters.  There are some reluctant admissions the Clinton's automatically get closer scrutiny because they are the closest thing in America to a royal family.