On Tuesday, PBS's Judy Woodruff did a live interview with Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein which was carried on Facebook. The entire interview, plus questions asked by viewers, is present at the network's Facebook page.
That interview without the Facebook questions was also broadcast on PBS's NewsHour — but not quite all of it. For some reason, key portions of Stein's answer to Woodruff's final question about whether "literally ... Hillary Clinton is every bit as bad for the country as Donald Trump" are not present. Based on what was edited out, it would appear that the cutouts, at least one of which was done in mid-sentence, were carried out to protect Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton's left flank.
Full Frontal host Samantha Bee joined the set of Wednesday’s PBS NewsHour to promote her TBS show and in the process, she claimed to be an “independent” despite being “excited for Hillary” and defended her show’s near constant use of “salty language” despite a drove of critics (which she argued she ignores).
PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff was awarded an interview with Republican vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence for Thursday night's newscast, and she questioned Pence from the right about whether Trump can be someone social conservatives can support. But what really stood out was Woodruff's repeated protests against "pretty harsh criticism" of Hillary Clinton. She said "Last question," and then asked the same question three times, insisting the Republicans were just too harsh.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, appeared in live PBS/NPR convention coverage on Wednesday night and walked into a barrage of liberal questions designed to shame him and separate him from Donald Trump, who they implied was a terrible Christian. “Conservative” PBS David Brooks not only suggested Trump has no Christian virtues, he told Perkins that social conservatives should sit out the election – obviously making it easier to elect Hillary Clinton.
PBS covered the Republican convention for three hours of prime time on Monday night, in association with its pubcasting buddies at NPR. But they were allergic to showing any Hillary-scandal films that were offered on the convention floor. As a mini-documentary ran about Benghazi, PBS anchors Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff clumsily talked over it, and NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson had a wide-eyed freakout at what she claimed was a historically “intense animus” against an opposing candidate.
We are so fortunate to have expert psychoanalyst Judy Woodruff on call at PBS. (That's sarcasm, folks.)
Friday evening, Woodruff, apparently because whatever evidence there is of ISIS involvement in Thursday's terrorist massacre in Nice, France is in her view insufficiently direct, speculated that "It could have been the act of one person disgruntled, upset with his life."
Democratic Rep. Corrine Brown was indicted on 24 federal charges on Friday related to a "fraudulent education charity," as CNN.com put it on Friday. However, viewers of CNN's on-air coverage, as well as those who watch MSNBC and the Big Three networks' morning and evening newscasts, would know nothing of this indictment, as these TV outlets have yet to cover it, as of Monday morning.
As right-leaning Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson substituted for New York Times columnist David Brooks on Friday's PBS NewsHour, he gave an analysis worthy of pretend-conservative Brooks as he was critical of the North Carolina bathroom law and asserted that there is an equivalency between the Obama administration on the left and supporters of the North Carolina law on the right.
The latest edition of PBS NewsHour's regular "Shields and Brooks" segment not only featured both analysts slamming GOP presidential candidate and Texas Senator Ted Cruz from the left over terrorism, but the liberal Shields actually admonished President Barack Obama for his reaction to the Brussels terrorist attacks while faux-conservative Brooks wholeheartedly defended Obama's behavior in Cuba. On Cruz's recommendation of more police engagement with Muslim communities, Brooks griped that he had forgotten "how ugly Ted Cruz could be."
On the regular "Shields and Brooks" on Friday's PBS NewsHour, it was another case of a liberal analyst and a faux-conservative agreeing with each other as allegedly right-leaning New York Times columnist David Brooks gushed over U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, calling him "an excellent choice," a "model of judicial restraint," and "a man of both amazing integrity and capacity to be emotionally moved" as he urged confirmatiin since a President Hillary Clinton would likely nominate someone who "from a Republican point-of-view, could be a lot worse."
On Friday, Media Research Center Research Director Rich Noyes targeted PBS on Fox Business Network's Risk and Reward over their failure to ask Hillary Clinton about her ongoing e-mail scandal at their Democratic presidential debate on Thursday. Noyes pointed out that "the far-left MSNBC did ask Hillary Clinton about this at their debate last week. Very gently, they said, can you reassure Democratic voters that this won't be a problem? PBS won't even go as far as MSNBC in bringing this issue before people vote. It's amazing."
Any would-be Republican presidential candidate who had--hanging around his neck--all the scandals and investigations that surround Hillary Clinton, would likely not have the chutzpah to throw his hat into the ring. He'd know that the MSM would create such a toxic environment that his candidacy would never have a chance of getting off the ground.
And so it is somewhere between amusing and outrageous to hear Mark Halperin claim, as he did on today's With All Due Respect, that the press is "biased against" Hillary Clinton. Granted, Halperin did so in the context of discussing this evening's Dem debate between Hillary and Bernie Sanders. As between those two, might the MSM lean towards Sanders, as the further-left candidate? Could be. But if Hillary wins the nomination, does Halperin doubt that the press will be pulling for Clinton against the Republican? Some bias!