Media networks don’t need to do a damn thing to “ensure” that Clinton will spend ad money on them. You can’t play it both ways by first collapsing the media into a collection of 6 monopolies (a point I’m not trying to disagree with: media consolidation is a huge problem in the US) but then imagining there must be some sort of “collusion” going on that forces Clinton to spend ad money with them. Who the hell else would she spend the ad money with?! You said it yourself — they’re pretty much the only game in town.
As for a presidential campaign “coordinating” with the media — aka communicating with them about coverage — that is business as usual. That is how it works. Speaking as a former reporter: it is all an access game — not just in politics but in tech, entertainment, sports, etc. etc. To get access to subjects and information, you have to, well, *coordinate with the subjects and their handlers to get that information*. There is no magical world of pure Platonic journalism where public figures give sworn testimony under oath to reporters (that’s why we thankfully have courts), and investigative journalism is sadly — and I do agree this is problematic — a rarity and not in any way shape or form the “norm” procedure where media coverage is concerned (if anything, it continues to dwindle for lack of funding model).
I’m not saying you don’t have grounds for concern — I’ve read some of the Podesta emails and have found them pretty humdrum so far but I haven’t read all of them so I’m open to the possibility there’s some smoking gun still out there — but you don’t have grounds for the reason stated, because the media coordination referenced is entirely routine. Now, you may rightly take some issue with the way the media “game” itself is played as a whole (I certainly do) — but it’s hardly morally appropriate to single out Clinton for blame on behalf of a woefully imperfect system of disseminating information to the public.