GERALDO RIVERA: The fact of the matter is they have damaged Hillary Clinton's prospects, have they not? The word association [with] untrustworthy, dishonest, all the rest of it, David Brock.

DAVID BROCK: Yeah, there's no doubt about the fact that they've had some success politically, they've had no success on the investigation. But in the current climate we're in, you don't necessarily need to find anything that's provable, there's just the allegation of misconduct and wrongdoing does its own kind of damage and it dominated the conversation. One thing that surprised me was that it would dominate our conversation for six months. But that has inhibited Hillary from being able to break through the clutter with the positive messaging that she is putting out. 

[...]

So if your name was on the front page of The New York Times with the allegations of criminal misconduct that are completely false over the months, your poll ratings would suffer a bit too. 

 

Previously: 

Media Matters' David Brock On NY Times' Faulty Clinton Coverage: “Once Might Be A Mistake, Twice A Coincidence, Three Times A Pattern”

50 Headlines That Reveal Wash. Post Reporter Chris Cillizza's Obsession With The Clinton Email Story

STUDY: Broadcast Evening News Glossed Over Clinton's Policy Plans While Obsessing Over Her Emails