"But Her Emails"

A reflection.

While scrolling through the questions for my Friday mailbag post, I came across one that I thought deserved special attention.

Here it is:

“I ask this as someone who has enjoyed your writing enough to have subscribed and followed you since your days at the Post. Do you think the number of stories that you write about Joe Biden’s age before the end of the campaign may actually eclipse the number of stories you wrote about Hillary Clinton’s emails, a record once thought to be untouchable like DiMaggio’s hitting streak or Secretariat at the Belmont?”

In case you are unfamiliar, let me catch you up.

In the course of the 2016 campaign, it was reported that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, had used a private email server for much of her correspondence. Clinton wound up deleting more than 30,000 emails from that server before she turned it over to the FBI.

She admitted she made a “mistake” in using the private server but insisted there was no wrongdoing. Then FBI Director James Comey said that his organization “didn't find any evidence of evil intent and intent to obstruct justice.”

Donald Trump, however, seized on the issue as proof positive of Clinton’s corruption. He insisted Clinton should be indicted, and said that the fact that she wasn’t was evidence of a biased justice system.

Now to the “me” part of all of this. During the 2016 campaign, I was working at The Washington Post — writing for the blog I started called “The Fix.” And I wrote about Clinton’s emails — a lot.

As Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple wrote back in 2017:

Over months and months of campaign coverage, the fast-twitch columnist compiled a deep archive on the email question. “Hillary Clinton tried to answer questions about her emails. It didn’t go well.“; “Donald Trump should talk about Hillary Clinton’s email all the time. Here’s why.“; “4 things Hillary Clinton got wrong in her latest statement about those emails“; “Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got much worse.” The trail of these iterative posts from Cillizza mirrors a larger phenomenon in the mainstream media, which found it just too easy to keep writing email stories.

Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog, was more blunt — running a piece with this headline: “50 Headlines That Reveal Wash. Post Reporter Chris Cillizza's Obsession With The Clinton Email Story.”

I was seen — by Democrats, mostly — as a leading example of everything that was wrong with the media: By focusing time and energy on the Clinton email server question, I was suggesting to readers that it was on par with the various transgressions committed by Donald Trump. That they were both flawed candidates — just in different ways — when, in fact, Trump was an active danger to the country and Clinton was, well, not.

In September 2015, in response to the Media Matters piece, I wrote something defending myself. (You can read it here.). My argument boiled down to 3 things: 1) Clinton’s time as Secretary of State was critical to her 2016 candidacy and therefore who she talked to (and emailed) mattered a lot 2) The Clinton campaign’s story on the server had repeatedly changed and 3) I write a lot.

Eight years later, I still find that logic (mostly) defensible — especially the last point. My critics — as well as the person who sent in the question I referenced at the top of this piece — point to the volume (ie the sheer number) of stories I wrote about Clinton’s emails as the real problem.

But, as I have written in this space, I have always written a LOT. Back in 2016, I was averaging 4 items a day. Meaning 20-25 items for a 7-day week. And almost a hundred pieces a month.

While 50 Clinton emails stories seems like a lot, when you add in the context of how much I was writing, I think it lessens the blow significantly. As I wrote back in 2015, I definitely wrote more than 50 Donald Trump stories over that same period of time.

To me, though, reducing this conversation to one solely about numbers misses the point. And, I think let’s me off a bit easy.

What I got wrong in 2016 was how I viewed Trump. I thought that, sure, he was an unconventional candidate but, like, how much damage could he really do?!

I didn’t grasp that Trump represented an existential threat to American democracy. I never could have imagined back then that January 6, 2021 was even the remotest of possibilities.

I think my coverage reflected that incorrect assumption. I treated the Clinton email story as, basically, on par with the various allegations swirling around Trump. Both were politicians with flaws, I thought. Writing about those flaws was my job.

Given what Trump did in office — most notably his blatant disregard for norms and, um, laws — that was clearly not the case. Yes, Clinton’s emails were a story. But the story was the threat that Trump posed.

I didn’t go a good job of making that clear to readers — both in what I wrote about Clinton and what I wrote about Trump.

Fast forward to today — and to the reader’s insinuation that I am making the same mistake in covering Joe Biden’s age.

Let me first say I am mindful of the criticism. Unlike the me of a decade ago, I am trying my best to not be defensive — and to think through why I choose to write what I choose to write.

That said, a few thoughts:

1. Biden’s age is an issue — and not in a good way — for a majority of Americans. This is true across a number of polls and a number of months. It is also true that he is the oldest person ever to be president — and would be 86 at the end of his second term. I DO think those facts mean that Biden’s age merits coverage (in this space and the broader media).

2. That Joe Biden is old is not an issue on par with the fact that the guy he is likely to run against tried to overturn a free and fair election in 2020, incited a riot to prevent the counting of electoral college votes in 2021 and is promising an authoritarian-adjacent 2nd term if elected in 2024.

I think my coverage of the 2024 campaign can reflect those realities in concrete ways.

I think I should write more about Trump than Biden because he would represent a radical change in how presidents behave and operate if elected again. Plus, he is currently under four active indictments!

I think in all stories — including and especially those about Biden’s age or the issues surrounding his son, Hunter — I have to note Trump’s indictments, his statements about what he would do as the next president and his actions around overturning the last election.

I think I always need to be very careful of equating — in any way — the charges against Trump with Biden’s age. These are both issues for the candidates, yes. But they are not equal — or close to it.

I have always said that I am a work in progress — as a person and as a journalist. I have always strived to get things right but that doesn’t mean I have always done so.

My pledge to you is that I will continue to do my best to learn from my mistakes, to be honest and transparent about why I do what I do and to continue to grow journalistically.

Thanks for listening and coming along for the ride.