NY Times will pimp for Biden

File under ‘News media bias’

Stop the presses: Barack Obama has endorsed Joe Biden for president. The Babylon Bee headlines this non-story: “Obama: Biden has touched us all.”

Which is a headline you will not read in the New York Times, which is walking on the wild side (“a hustle here and a hustle there”) on Fifth Avenue in high heels and net stockings for Old Uncle Joe. 

No fig leaf is too transparent, no shuck and jive too demeaning if it pimps Democrats’ doddering Great White Hope, Joe Biden. Donald Trump must be defeated at any cost, including credibility.

So when a woman on March 25 publicly accused the presumptive Democrat(ic) nominee of sexual assault, the newspaper of record ignored the allegation until April 12 when it could liberally apply a gallon can of whitewash, exonerating Biden as it revealed the charges for the first time.

May contain alcoholDifferent strokes

Yet, the Times went up with anonymous accusations against Justice Kavanaugh as soon as they were leveled — before Christine Blasey Ford had put her name to the allegation. National Review chronicles the double standard:

When undeniably disreputable figures [think Michael Avenetti] came out of the woodwork to offer lurid and preposterous tales of Kavanaugh’s supposed predations (many of which have since been recanted or thoroughly debunked [think Julie Swetnik]), the Times ran with them. — “The New York Times knows nobody believes it about Biden, Kavanaugh, and Sexual Assault.”

National Review’s Dan McLaughlin notes “Biden has long been too free with his hands, with physical contact such as hugging and kissing and touching and smelling women’s hair, without regard for their personal space or consent.”

But when the Times editorial board met with Biden in January, it asked him no questions about any of this, but it did press him over not being sufficiently aggressive in supporting Anita Hill’s sexual-harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas in 1991.

Weasel words

Editor Dean Baquet is asked why the Times held off until its exoneration story on April 12 an allegation that had been made way back in March 25. 

“Look, I get the argument. Just do a short, straightforward news story. But I’m not sure that doing this sort of straightforward news story would have helped the reader understand. Have all the information he or she needs to think about what to make of this thing.”


Pure arrogance: “I’m not sure a straightforward news story would help the reader understand.”


“This does not pass the laugh-out-loud test,”  says NR’s McLaughlin. “Does any sentient being believe that the Times would have waited more than two weeks to even mention such an allegation against a Republican or conservative figure, while it tried to figure out how to tell its readers what “he or she needs to think about what to make of this thing”?

Finally, Baquet admits that the Biden campaign itself objected to wording that the Times obligingly deleted. In the same Sunday edition, a piece by Joe Biden on how he would have cured the novel coronavirus AND a screaming, page one story on how Trump is killing us all. (Video of Trump’s response.)

Blaska’s Bottom Line #1: Beware any news outlet that tells you it is going to help you “make sense” of the news. “That’s a synonym for “spin.”

Paul Fitz has her take here.

⇒ H/T to Ann of Althouse on whose site, BTW, is an ad for a men’s pubic hair shaver called “Manscaped,” featuring “Lawn Mower 3.0.” The product is “No #1 in Below-the-Waist Grooming. Sensitive areas require it, but both hygiene and ergonomics demand it.” When did men start … oh, we really don’t want to know.

Blaska’s Bottom Line #2: Remember this kind of bias next time someone calls for the repeal of the court’s Citizens United case. That is the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the McCain-Feingold legislation, which deputized unelected government bureaucrats to decide who may say what and when they may say it about our elected officials — but granted “journalists” a carve-out from the restrictions on political speech it placed on everyone else.

What do YOU think?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Election 2020, News media bias, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to NY Times will pimp for Biden

  1. The 04/12/2020 NYT (prior to removal):

    (bolds/caps mine throughout)
    “The Times Found No PATTERN of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, BEYOND_THE_HUGS_KISSES_AND_TOUCHING_THAT WOMEN_PREVIOUSLY_SAID_MADE_THEM_UNCOMFORTABLE.”

    The NYT believes three (3) types of UNWANTED physical contact by WOMEN (plural) does not constitute a pattern?

    It gets worse.

    NYT executive editor Dean Baquet to media columnist Ben Smith on the…um…dele: “The [Biden] campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct”

    Allowing a political campaign to audit editorial content? What could possibly go wrong.

    Anywho, when pressed to explain why they didn’t include an editor’s note-head’s up to readers regarding the change, Baquet:

    We didn’t think it was a factual mistake. I thought it was an awkward phrasing issue that could be read different ways and that it wasn’t something factual we were correcting

    How freakin’ stupid must the Gray Lady (hellbent for an Alzheimer’s Unit) believe their readership to be?

    To paraphrase Don Corleone; “Now listen, whoever defends the NYT, he’s the traitor.”

    That said, The Gotch wouldn’t use that rag to wrap fish (it’d be an insult to the fish!), so perhaps one of the regular consumers of that sorry @$$ screed (ahem…AnonyBob, hankdog/old baldy, Leo, et al) might enlighten us the knuckledragging benighted?

    Thank you in advance!

    The Gotch

    Liked by 2 people

  2. dad29 says:

    When did men start

    You assumed, incorrectly, that MEN were doing this. Girly-men are not men.

    Like

  3. Paul Lawrence says:

    “I’m not sure that doing this sort of straightforward news story would have helped the reader understand.” That’s a damning and damnable thing for a newspaper editor to say. It implies, among other things, that he, his writers and the readers are all incompetent.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “That’s a damning and damnable thing for a newspaper editor to say.”

      Especially in such a cavalier and nonchalant manner

      “It implies, among other things, that he, his writers and the readers are all incompetent.”

      At best.

      At worst? That the NYT isn’t in the business of news reporting, but of brazen agenda pursuit.

      This is nothing new; for a damning indictment of The Paper Of Record, former editor Michael Cieply’s supernal BEAT DOWN of the NYT’s legendary arrogance, and comeuppance:

      Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Soul-Searching

      The Gotch

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.