On the front page of Monday’s New York Times, political reporters Astead Herndon and Lisa Lerer were given room to celebrate Democratic female candidates under the pseudo-clever headline: “Women Who Won Are Asked if They Can Win.” (Why are they trailing so badly in the polls then?) The text box on the jump page: “The misogyny Clinton faced in 2016 resurfaces for 2020.” (So that’s why they’re trailing so badly: Misogyny.) Rather than question her, Herndon and Lerer set the table for Gillibrand to make her case: "Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York had a request: Before anyone mocked her claim that she was the Democratic presidential candidate best positioned to take on President Trump, at least listen to the evidence."
There was a consistency in stories from the New York Times Monday, with reporters taking left-wing jabs against two Democratic senators who have launched presidential campaigns The profile of Minnesota’s Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar launch in the snow by Mitch Smith and Lisa Lerer falsely tried to pose her as a non-threatening moderate: “Klobuchar Enters Race With Appeal to Center.” The front-page Kamala Harris profile was consistent with the Times’ previous “The Long Run” series of pieces on Republican candidates from 2012, profiling President Obama’s potential Republican opponents. In all cases, the subjects were attacked from the left by Times reporters.
At the top of her 10:00 a.m. ET hour MSNBC show on Monday, anchor Hallie Jackson worried that President Trump’s upcoming nomination of a Supreme Court justice would provide “kind of a lifeline for Donald Trump, given other news his administration may not want to talk so much about, like the Russia investigation.”
In a late Wednesday afternoon NewsBusters post, I commented on the extraordinary hostility reporters at the Associated Press exhibited towards Donald Trump and his administration during their first two full business days in power. In that post, I wondered if they might be carrying a childish grudge over not being able to ask the first question at Press Secretary Sean Spicer's briefings, as they virtually always have since last decade. An unbylined late Tuesday AP report spotted by John Hinderaker at Powerline confirmed my suspicion. They're mad as hornets, and clearly can't handle it.
On Wednesday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was in Washington to formally open the new Trump Hotel in Washington. This set off a media chorus of, "Oh my gosh, he's taking time off from campaigning! How can he do that when he's behind in the polls?" Meanwhile, Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton's public appearance schedule during this 2016 campaign has been among the lightest of any major-party candidate going back at least to 1964. During that time, I don't recall any candidate leaving the trail for several days prior to each of three debates, as Mrs. Clinton did in late September, early October and mid-October. Given Mrs. Clinton's light schedule, CNN's Dana Bash cluelessly questioned Trump over why "you're taking time out of swing states to go do this."
At NewsBusters late Wednesday afternoon, Tim Graham observed that many news outlets, including the Associated Press and most of the nation’s major newspapers, had not yet covered "the Project Veritas videos exposing Democratic operatives talking about voter fraud and inciting violence at Donald Trump rallies."
An example of how unhinged press bias builds on itself was on display Sunday morning on CNN's Inside Politics.
Associated Press reporter Lisa Lerer told other panel members who were criticizing Hillary Clinton for her lack of an in-person public statement on the the results of Thursday's Brexit referendum that they should doubt the legitimacy of the result. She did so by referring to "all the great anecdotal stories on the BBC and other outlets" which found a few voters, clearly surprised by the result given pre-election polling which predicted that Remain would win, who said, in Lerer's words, "Well it was a protest vote. I didn’t think we’d leave."
Three offensive elements pervaded the Associated Press's Monday coverage of Hillary Clinton's statement that she will put her husband "in charge of revitalizing the economy." The first was how AP reporters Lisa Lerer and Catherin Lucey decided to resurrect the infamous "2-for-1 offer" then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton campaigned on in 1992 — an especially weak move, given its real-world results during the first two years of his presidency. The second was the reporters' implicit assumption that political beliefs are infinitely fungible if the old ones are getting in the way of a leftist's march towards victory. Finally, the AP pair engaged in blatant historical revisionism in glorifying the economy of the 1990s.
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton believes we're supposed to be impressed by the idea of putting her husband Bill, in the Associated Press's words, "in charge of revitalizing the economy." Yep, the old "2-for-1" offer from the early 1990s is back.
In 1993, President Bill put First Lady Hill in charge of health care. Fortunately, nothing tangible resulted, but we did get an early lesson in the extremes of Clintonian secrecy and stonewalling. This time, a President Hill would put "First Dude" Bill — as the AP's Lisa Lerer and Catherine Lucey, brazenly stealing Sarah Palin's description of husband Todd while she was Alaska's Governor, prospectively described him on Monday — effectively in charge of the economy. Here's the big problem the press is virtually certain to ignore: Bill Clinton guaranteed in 2012 that the economy under a reelected Barack Obama would not need revitalization by now.
When was the last time a badly trailing presidential candidate in either major party won relatively late-in-the-game contests by lopsided victory margins of greater than 70-30, as Bernie Sanders did in Washington today, and greater than 80-20, as Sanders did in Alaska? I'm virtually certain that the answer to that question, regardless of what happens in Hawaii's Democratic primary much later tonight Eastern Time, is: Never.
Two of the three major news outlets I reviewed failed to report the size of Sanders' thumping victory margins. It is, however, quite telling that the third, the New York Times, though it had a blasé "he won" headline, conceded that Sanders' wins support "his argument that the race for the Democratic nomination is not a foregone conclusion."