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.
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.
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.”
⇒ 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.