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.
Who were those guys on Morning Joe today—two Feinstein staffers? Nope, they were Mark Halperin and Jeremy Peters, making like Dem aides in defending the report on the CIA that Dem Senator Diane Feinstein released yesterday.
Halperin, head of Bloomberg Politics, had the chutzpah to claim that the report was not "political." Peters of the New York Times then chimed in to say that in releasing the report, the Senate conducted itself in a "very sober" way.
New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters on Tuesday all but rooted for a backlash against the GOP's "harsh" "hardliners," and for the party to take a more "charitable" view of illegal immigration -- once the Republicans make their expected gains in the upcoming Congressional elections.
The New York Times led off with a "Political Memo" by Jeremy Peters, "Cry of G.O.P. in Campaign: All Is Dismal -- Looking for a Theme in ISIS and Infection," which not so subtly suggested in tone and text that some hyperbolic Republican campaign rhetoric was out of bounds in suggesting that President Obama is not competent in world affairs.
The Supreme Court on Monday delivered its verdict in the closely watched Hobby Lobby case, ruling 5-4 that the Christian-run craft store doesn't have to obey the Obamacare mandate that requires health care plans to pay for birth-control drugs that may induce abortion. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion stated that requiring such closely-held corporations to provide such coverage violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Yet New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak's lead story Tuesday, under the banner headline "Court Limits Birth Control Rule," managed to quote liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent in the second sentence.
Like many analysts in the “mainstream media,” New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters sought to explain how David Brat -- a 49-year-old economics professor and virtually unknown candidate -- won the Republican primary in Virginia on Tuesday, unseating Eric Cantor, a seven-term incumbent who has served as the majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Peters' explanation? During a lengthy article the following day, he asserted that the upset victory was made possible by the intervention of “potent voices of the conservative media,” including GOP radio talk show hosts Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin.
Sure, Mika Brzezinski is a big Fauxchohantas fan who'd love to see Senator 1/32nd take on Hillary Clinton. But regardless of her motivation, credit Mika for courageously critiquing Hillary.
In a segment on today's Morning Joe about Hillary's "dead broke" blunder, Brzezinski scolded Hillary defenders Jeremy Peters [NYT], the egregious Thomas Roberts, Eugene Robinson and Joe Scarborough. Mika accused them of being "afraid" of the Clintons, of tiptoeing around them, and of holding their fire in hopes of being granted an interview with Hillary. View the startling video after the jump.