The New York Post broke the story surrounding a selfie crotch shot of Anthony Weiner, husband to one of the top aides in the Clinton Campaign, along with a string of sexting messages back and forth with an unidentified sexy selfie posing female.
Although it is obvious that the source for this article was the nameless hottie herself, it is not so obvious as to what her motivation was for breaking the story. Was it to humiliate Mr. Weiner or point out behind the scenes chaos in the Clinton campaign? The tone of the Post article seems to be playful and sarcastic, mocking the antics of Mr. Weiner; outlining the course of the conversations, and including the lurid pictures themselves. The Post’s breaking story appeals to a younger demographic who can relate to the language used in the texts and is easily entertained by others’ ‘dirty laundry.’
The very next day, The New York Times took the story but approached it with a different angle. Minus the titillating pictures, the Times article took the Post’s breaking story and focused on the breakup of Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin’s, marriage and how this recent scandal might be affecting the Democrats campaign. The Times draws comparisons to the Clinton’s marital issues back in 1998, and how this recent scandal could in fact be causing instabilities in the running of Clinton’s current campaign for the Presidency. The motivation behind The Times’ article is a little unclear, but wreaks of accusations that emails and other classified information available to Huma Abedin may not be secure given her husband’s lack of judgement. It is hard to tell if the reporter wants to remind its readers, a slightly older demographic than the Post’s subscribers, of how reminiscent this type of scandal is with the Clintons.
The New York Times article portrays a sympathetic and understanding Hillary Clinton and her assurance that this will not affect her campaign at all. The reporter also takes the view from the other camp and quotes Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton’s rival, as saying the “I only worry for the country in that Hillary Clinton was careless and negligent in allowing Weiner to have such close proximity to highly classified information. Who knows what he learned and who he told? It’s just another example of Hillary Clinton’s bad judgment. It is possible that our country and its security have been greatly compromised by this.”
Both articles have the text message evidence to support their story, however, the Times article takes the information from the Post article and goes several steps further with speculation questioning how this scandal may affect national security.
In the case of the Times’ article, the reader is asked to use logic to conclude that this incident is not good for the Clinton campaign or national security. In the Post’s article the reader is entertained, left rolling their eyes at yet another ‘here we go again’ story of people behaving badly.