To get better coverage try nominating the least worst candidate next time

No, there is no conspiracy to not report on Wikileaks and Hillary’s e-mail and how damn dumb about everything everyone in DC seems to be (if you needed Julian Assange to reveal this to you, I have a candidate for president I’d like to sell you). It’s just that the Republican Party nominated A SERIAL SEXUAL PREDATOR with the impulse control of an overwound spaniel and the vocabulary of the Freepi comments.

Even I, thrower of things at the local news during sweeps week’s “X common household item could be killing your children” segments, can understand the news value of “insane racist is being run for president like it’s NBD” over “conventional politician acted in conventional, gross ways.”

On the one hand, you have Hillary Clinton and her team of nitwits being rude in writing, which is so, so stupid. Just use SnapChat to shit-talk other people, guys. Teenagers have figured this out. On the other hand, you have a man who threw coke parties with underage girls and thinks “grab them by the pussy” is a funny, cute thing to say AND DO.

There’s really no excuse for bitching about a conspiracy to conceal information that somehow everyone seems to have anyway. If your thing is not getting America’s attention, that is your thing’s fault. It is not some other thing’s fault. The news, as I keep telling people in journalism, is not a bowl of sugar. There isn’t room, especially now with the Internets, for only so much and then the end of it. And NEWSFLASH if you know about shit, chances are someone told you, and if someone told you, that means the information got out and was free and all was as it should have been.

We can argue all day long about emphasis and order, and I will, but spare me the whining that your horrible candidate is being covered as the most horrible candidate. You had a chance to not have that happen BY NOT NOMINATING A HORRIBLE CANDIDATE. Parts of this WERE under your control.