Friday, April 1, 2016

Newsbusters Trashes "Liberal Media" For Conservative Bias

MRC Watch Dept. - How badly does the Newsbusters gang hate Hillary Clinton? The org is built on peddling the myth of a "liberal media" to rightists eager to believe it--confirmation bias as commerce--and the far-right politics of its writers make democratic socialist Bernie Sanders absolutely anathema to them but when it comes to covering the coverage of the ongoing presidential campaign, it seems hatred of Clinton entirely overrides these considerations.

Week after week, Newsbusters has been featuring stories that roast press outlets for exactly the same sort of misbehavior this author regularly denounces over on "News Reviews"; journalistic malpractice in support of the Clinton campaign.

--When Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard resigned from the shamelessly Clinton-backing DNC to endorse Sanders, Tom Blumer raked the Associated Press over the coals for burying the story.

--When CNN's Alisyn Camerota "badgered" Gabbard over her endorsement of Sanders--"Why endorse Bernie Sanders now when, frankly, it feels as though the momentum, after South Carolina, has shifted away from him and towards Hillary Clinton?"--Matthew Balan was there to call out Camerota.

--When elements of the press went along with some phony "outrage" ginned up by the Clinton camp over some things Sanders said in a debate, Mark Finkelstein offered an huzzah to Mark Helperin and John Heilemann for condemning this.

--When NBC's Today and ABC's Good Morning America focused their debate coverage on the color of suit Sanders had worn, Kyle Drennen called foul (consistent with his own politics, Drennen wanted more coverage of the questioning of Clinton on the Benghazi non-issue but one can substitute any substantive issue discussed in that particular debate--the news people are arguing over what color suit Sanders wore).

--Incredibly, when Clinton falsely claimed Sanders "stood with the Minutemen vigilantes in their ridiculous, absurd efforts to quote, 'hunt down immigrants'," several press "fact-checkers" partially sided with Clinton; Tim Graham objected.

--After Sanders completely destroyed Clinton in a series of contests last week, Tom Blumer noted the Associated Press and USA Today had failed to mention Sanders' margin of victory and wrote that the New York Times had downplayed the wins.

--This morning, David Muir interviewed Sanders on Good Morning America and, in the words of Scott Whitlock, "spouted Clinton talking points" and "attempted to turn Clinton screaming at someone [a questioner from Greenpeace] into a positive."

--On CBS This Morning, John Dickerson described that same Clinton outburst as an example of her "authenticity" and questioned Sanders about Clinton's assertion that he was "lying" about her. Kyle Drennen objected to this one. Drennen notes that Dana Jacobson asks Sanders if he would back Clinton if he lost the nomination. Contrary to Drennen's suggestion, the questioning about Clinton's charge of "lying" isn't at all inappropriate--rather, failing to ask about that one would have been--but the rest of the behavior he spotlights is certainly inappropriate.

And so on--just a few of the recent examples. Most of Newsbusters' prominent writers have chimed in with articles of this nature.[1] If they're aware that the press behavior they're spotlighting works directly against their own central premise and their employers' reason for existing--because every one of these is an example of a conservative press working on behalf of the more conservative candidate and against the lefty in the race--their long-ingrained hatred of Clinton overwhelms any pause this realization may inspire.



[1] And to be fair, they also run articles--though far fewer lately--in which their dislike of Sanders' politics is readily evident.

[This article was written for MRC Watch, where we disapprove of "objective" journalists acting as campaign agents for candidates.]

No comments:

Post a Comment