Journalists are supposed to be the most informed members of society. Nothing is supposed to get past the iron traps in their brains. So which one of these concepts sounds more like a brain cramp? Hillary is so fantastic at defending herself she shouldn't be hiding from the press; or the Obama administration is remarkably scandal-free?
These are actual concepts forwarded on television in the last few days.
Pointing to 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s declining poll numbers when it comes to favorability and honesty, a panel on Morning Joe discussed the implications of these numbers on the former First Lady’s campaign. While host Joe Scarborough and former Bush staffer Nicolle Wallace agreed that the numbers are concerning, the New York Times’ Jeremy Peters was frustrated by the campaign’s strategy:
After having stayed silent on the George Stephanopoulos scandal on Thursday, MSNBC finally covered the story with multiple segments on Friday’s Morning Joe devoted to Stephanopoulos’s previously undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation. Surprisingly, the main theme that was derived from segments of banter was how the panelists were struck by the ABC News chief anchor’s inability to disclose the $75,000.
ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos, who helped President Bill Clinton juggle various scandals during the 1992 campaign and as White House communication director, has apologized for failing to disclose a total of $75,000 in donations to the controversial Clinton Foundation, even before grilling Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash. The New York Times ran a surprising front-page story , "Stephanopoulos Gifts Reinforce G.O.P. Doubts," which actually touched on examples of Stephanopoulos bias against the GOP, though claiming that such bias had previously been only "circumstantial." Oh really?
New York Times campaign reporter Jeremy Peters on Tuesday lent libertarian-Republican Sen. Rand Paul some slight, cynical support toward his attempt to repeal the Patriot Act, yet maintained his personal hostility toward both the GOP, which "demands fealty to hawkish dogma on national security and defense," and the candidate himself, who "can't stop swearing" and whose "mouth gets him in trouble."
Jeremy Peters, the New York Times' designated critic of Republican presidential hopefuls, played the money card on Monday's front page, over a headline that reached back to the 2012 campaign: "G.O.P. Hopefuls Now Try to Woo the 47 Percent." In Peters' previous front-page stories on the GOP field, he has variously accused them of being ignorantly anti-science (in a misleading report on the vaccination controversy) and anti-immigrant.
On today's Morning Joe, ardent Hillary Clinton fan Howard Dean ran into a buzzsaw when he tried to defend her against serious charges of conflict of interest by going after the authors of the stories rather than the substance of the allegations.
Joe Scarborough ripped Dean's "comic-book politics" and called his conduct "unbecoming." New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters accused Dean of maligning his fellow reporters, and Mika Brzezinski taunted Dean, saying "you can go on your little jihad against the author, but it's not going to change the facts."
Libertarian-leaning Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has announced for president, and the media is locked and loaded, with Jeremy Peters reporting that "Paul Gets the TV Spotlight and Turns It on Interviewers in Testy Encounters."
Peters, who recently used the vaccine issue to smear conservatives as opposed to "modern science" on the Times' front page, made it clear that going after his media colleagues would be an unwise thing for Republican candidates to do, suggesting it played into the Republican stereotype (fostered by those very same media colleagues) as hard-edged and insensitive.
New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters was asked on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Thursday about the difference between the Indiana religious-freedom law as it was originally written and as it stood now. Peters decided to unveil the bigger issue with the RFRA laws themselves: "these laws look as if they're coming from a dark place. They are designed in many cases to express a disapproval about gay relationships. And that's what's so upsetting to people about this."
T. Becket Adams at The Washington Examiner drew up a list of people shocked, shocked, that Scott Walker punted on a “gotcha” evolution question at a London Q&A.
Adams noted that these same liberal journalists don’t blink when liberal politicians punt on gotcha abortion questions. Conservatives are "climate deniers" or Darwin deniers, but when liberals are baby deniers? The media can only laugh along with them when that hardly tricky matter of science comes up.
Eagerly clawing around for a wedge issue with which to split the Republican Party, the New York Times used the controversy over mandatory vaccinations to smear the GOP as opposed to "modern science" and "established science" in "Measles Proves Delicate Issue to G.O.P. Field," a front-page story Tuesday.
The New York Times' long-standing support for amnesty for illegal immigrants -- and its contempt for the Republican Party's continued opposition -- leaped out of Thursday's front-page story by Jeremy Peters, a reporter whose hostility to the GOP is well-documented.