significant information being leaked can make or break candidates’ ability to succeed. The
Associated Press recently released an article about Hillary Clinton’s speeches she made for large
firms and how she earned “an average of $225,000 for each speech.” The article goes on to
explain that 60 or more firms and organizations who paid Clinton for her speeches had lobbied
the United States government at some point in time since the beginning of the Obama
administration. The Wall Street firms which paid her raise questions as to whether or not she
has a hidden agenda or is being coerced into helping these massive firms stay massive, a result
that is the opposite …show more content…
The ethics behind the article are questionable at best. Obviously this article doesn’t
cross the line on privacy rights since this information was released by the Clinton Campaign
(WikiLeaks), but this article seems to jump to some conclusions that are better left to certainty.
To say that Clinton being paid by big companies would impact her ability to fight against them
raises a lot of doubts for a reader and would have a large impact on somebody’s opinion of
Clinton, yet it is not based in fact, it is based on opinion. Using your opinion to try and sway
someone isn’t real journalism. While it does back Clinton up a little bit by talking about how
Obama also took a lot of money from Wall Street and was able to fight them heavily during his
two terms, the large majority of the article seems to be painting Clinton in a negative light.
The author, Stephen Braun of the Associated Press, appears to clearly agree with the
implications of the leaked information because of how much time he spends dwelling on