Hillary Clinton in April vented her displeasure with modern media in a podcast anchored by Politico’s Glenn Thrush. Political leaders in the pre-Internet era, she argued, had luxuries denied to her by the velocity of news: “They had a period of time and space to actually think, to be private . . . and you read their biographies, their autobiographies, you know, they had time to think about what was happening and how to respond,” she told Thrush.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee expanded on her feelings in an interview with Ezra Klein of the brainy explainer site Vox. “The media environment — particularly the social media environment — drives negativity. It’s what captures eyeballs. It’s what gets people to tune in or log on. It is just human nature,” said Clinton. And that’s not all! Media, in Clinton’s view, drive division: “I think the media environment where people are rewarded for being outrageous, for yelling at each other, for saying things that are untrue without being held accountable for it has contributed to this attitude of divisiveness and separation. And I regret that,” she told Klein.

These are all well-worn observations about the media. One-sided observations, at that. Social media also happens to be a place for her supporters to organize and say very positive things about their candidate. It’s also a fact-checking machine, a tidy antidote to this Clinton-to-Klein lament:  “It’s just not easy to sort out what you’re being told.”

So new media isn’t all bad. Consider that the same Clinton who bemoans quick-twitch Internet journalism had a relaxed and thorough discussion on Thrush’s highly regarded podcast and gave long answers to Klein’s thoughtful questions about government spending, trust in U.S. institutions, funding for education. Both of these platforms grew out of the “new” media environment that Clinton seems to scorn.