"Fair and balanced" coverage of the health issue
Here are six paragraphs from today's balanced AP story on the candidates' health: the first two paragraphs summarize their health, the next two describe Trump's "swipe" at Clinton for her brief absence, and the last two feature Clinton's "mocking" response to how Trump's health records were released.
Trump's letter said the Republican is 6-foot-3 and 236 pounds — giving him a body mass index falling into the "overweight" range. The 70-year-old has blood pressure of 116 over 70, and his total cholesterol is 169, his doctor says.
Clinton, 68, has blood pressure of 100 over 70, and her total cholesterol is 189, according to her doctor. Her letter made no mention of her weight, a key part of a medical exam; nor did a similar letter released last year.
Trump's team took a swipe at Clinton's brief absence from the campaign trail in a statement accompanying the new health information.
"We are pleased to disclose all of the test results which show that Mr. Trump is in excellent health, and has the stamina to endure — uninterrupted — the rigors of a punishing and unprecedented presidential campaign and, more importantly, the singularly demanding job of president of the United States," the campaign said.
Until Thursday, the only information on Trump's health had come in a widely ridiculed letter from his doctor declaring he would be the healthiest person to ever serve as president. Before releasing the new details to the public, Trump turned over a copy to Dr. Mehmet Oz while taping an episode of Oz's TV show.
Clinton mocked Trump's television rollout of his health records, saying, "I'll never be the showman that my opponent is — just look at the show he put on for Dr. Oz today."
On the other hand, Intelligencer readers looking for unbiased coverage of the candidates' health will need to look elsewhere -- today's Intelligencer did not print the final two paragraphs. (The deleted paragraphs are in bold.) Typical.
(Note -- I would be remiss not to mention that columnist Rich Lowry raises more questions about Clinton's health and attacks a pack of straw men on the editorial page.)
Shorter version of this morning's anti-Clinton editorial: never mind the Fifth Amendment and what FBI Director Comey concluded, we know she's guilty
The editorial starts by invoking the logic of the 1950s congressional witch hunts:
Most people do not worry about saying something that could incriminate them unless they have broken the law.
Really? A congressional hearing on Clinton's emails called up three computer specialists who were linked to Clinton's email server. All three refused on Fifth Amendment grounds. (The Intelligencer's love of the Bill of Rights would appear to be limited to the Second Amendment.) The editorial then tells us that Comey may come after them even though his quote appears to be about someone in Clinton's position. His quote:
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”
Perhaps there is another reason why the specialists refused to testify -- Benghazi. The Benghazi Research Center documents that we've had 10 congressional committees hold 33 hearings in which they've called up 252 witnesses and they've found nothing. If Clinton wins the election and the Democrats don't control both the House and the Senate, look for the investigative committees to begin not long after she is sworn in. (Would an impeachment committee be far behind?) These specialists would most likely face four years of endless hearings.