Posted on 02/06/2016 4:16:30 PM PST by Kaslin
The Washington Post is dragging out one of the oldest and phoniest arguments against the charge of liberal bias, an argument that has all the freshness of four-month-old milk. To sum up in a headline: "The media's biggest bias isn't partisan -- it's for a juicy story."
If this claim hadn't been completely obliterated by every juicy thing Bill Clinton did with women he hadn't married, we can apply it to nearly every Obama scandal - especially when journalists try to claim Obama has been "scandal-free."
Callum Borchers, the media reporter of the Post political team at "The Fix," starts on promising territory, in a sense. He thinks some people are exaggerating the political strength of Bernie Sanders because they want a "compelling narrative." Sanders might have peaked in Iowa and New Hampshire - perhaps.
As Borchers acknowledges, Sanders has long complained of being marginalized by the press, and he was - when reporters look at polls showing Hillary up by 50 points, they wonder why bother covering an alternative. But in the same way, journalists (especially on television) have tended to marginalize anyone on the Republican side who wasn't in second place to Trump or was related to former presidents.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
If they really believed this, they’d be covering Clinton’s email and Benghazi cover ups. It doesn’t get any “juicier”.
or obama’s IRS scandal.
or obama’s fast & furious cover-up.
or obama’s “if you like your health plan you can keep plan” lies
etc, etc, etc
What’s juicier than a story at the intersection of history, espionage, international relations, jurisprudence, true crime, feminism, technology, terrorism, war, the DC bureaucracy, and the presidential election?
Hillary’s email scandal touches all these bases and then more, but the media are overjoyed to be fobbed off with official denials and lame boilerplate answers from an obviously guilty candidate?
Really?
Them why did wapo and the rest of the Democrat dominated media do all it could to suppress the facts of Bill Clinton’s various malfeasances?
Who was a moderator at the last dim debate?
At the end of the last Democrat debate, the moderators went up and hugged the Democrat candidates.
Watch tonight to see if any Republicans get hugged by the paid assassins. I don’t expect it.
They said in 2008 that they were bias but it was only because the first black President was the better story
Yeah, look at the the stories concerning Hillary accepting hundreds of millions while she was Secretary of State. Oh wait, never mind.
Just wait until Judgment Day when all things shall be revealed that were hidden in this wicked age. Now those will be juicy stories.
They love juicing Republicans, but anything that harms Democrats is left on the tree.
Rachel Madcow, err I mean maddow
Well actually it was only Rachel Maddow who did.
Like the beginning of title says. “Lame”
If George Bush’s IRS had targeted liberal groups the Washington Post would have covered it for months...
They’re lying to themselves...
you mean the way the NYSlimes covered abu graibh??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.