Not even trying to hide the bias in midterm coverage

The New York Times is no exception.

On Oct. 13, the paper of record shared an embarrassingly biased update regarding an election debate between Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and his Democratic opponent, Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes.

FOUR TAKEAWAYS FROM WISCONSIN SENATE DEBATE BETWEEN RON JOHNSON AND MANDELA BARNES

The update reads, “Senator Johnson, a leading peddler of misinformation, will debate lieutenant governor, Barnes, a liberal Democrat who has been touted as one of the party’s rising stars.”

Sure, it’s a factually true statement. But come on.

One would have to be an idiot or a liar (or both!) to pretend this isn’t the New York Times firmly placing two feet on the scale in Barnes’s favor. It’s not even the bias that’s annoying. It’s the complete lack of effort. Major newsrooms used to at least feign impartiality and objectivity. This update makes an attempt at neither. The paper may as well have said, “Please vote for Barnes.” There’d be no functional difference between this statement and what the paper ultimately published.

And don’t pretend for a minute as if this type of coverage cuts both ways. It doesn’t.

Imagine, if you would, if the New York Times shared the following statement in 2016 in preparation for the first debate between the two presidential nominees: “Hillary Clinton, a failed presidential candidate and the target of recent investigations by the FBI and the State Department, will debate Donald Trump, a popular television star and entrepreneur who has been hailed as the future of his party.”

Having a difficult time imagining such an update from the New York Times? It’s understandable. The paper would never publish such a thing regarding a Democratic politician, even though it’s a factually true statement.

Only Republicans get this type of treatment.

French fries

Like the Democrats, certain newsrooms are frustrated voters seem to care more about the cost of living than the procedural minutiae of Congress’s investigation into the Jan. 6, 2020, attack on the Capitol.

On Oct. 13, CNN published a particularly insulting bit of political propaganda in a news story headlined, “Voters may care more about the cost of French fries than January 6 panel’s compelling evidence.”

What patronizing nonsense.

Voters are worried about the cost of basic groceries. They’re worried about the cost of fuel. They’re worried about feeding their families. They’re worried about keeping their houses warmed and cooled. With inflation stuck at 8.2%, they have every right to be concerned. Their pocketbooks are suffering already, and they suspect, perhaps correctly, the worst is yet to come.

To suggest voters are worried simply about “the cost of French fries” (i.e. frivolous luxury purchases) is to diminish these legitimate and keenly felt worries. It’s an insult to voters and readers alike. It’s patronizing to voters, downplaying their real-life hardships, and it’s a disservice to CNN’s audience, which deserves better than misleading and obtuse news coverage.

And it is misleading and obtuse. Don’t take my word for it. The author of the report, CNN’s Stephen Collinson, says as much in his own story.

“While it would be too simplistic to say voters are more preoccupied with the cost of French fries than the price of democratic freedoms,” he writes, “it wouldn’t be far from the mark.”

Yes, it would be too simplistic. Yet, Collinson used the “French fries” framing anyway, because “simplistic” is apparently his default setting.

Also, note the cute characterization: The Jan. 6th investigation is not just an investigation, but a heroic undertaking in service of our “democratic freedoms.” Yes, we get it. Boy, do we get it. Collinson clearly believes the investigation is singlehandedly staving off a fascist takeover of the United States. It’s apparently the most important thing happening in the country right now, according to CNN’s crackerjack reporter.

But perhaps Collinson can save his overwrought commentary for CNN’s opinion pages. Soaring inflation and the toll it’s taking on the average voter is a legitimately interesting news story, worthy of careful investigation and review. It’s a pity CNN didn’t assign a responsible and curious journalist to cover it.

Bullies

As a vainglorious fop once said: It’s a dangerous time to tell the truth in America.

He may have been on to something!

NBC News journalist Dasha Burns caught hell from her peers this month after she reported that Democratic Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman had difficulty communicating with her prior to a sit-down interview.

“In small talk before the interview,” Burns told NBC News’s Lester Holt, “it wasn’t clear [Fetterman] was understanding our conversation.”

As you may recall, the Pennsylvania Democrat suffered a stroke this year. Since then, he has struggled on the campaign trail to articulate his thoughts. Burns’s conversation with Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor, marked the first face-to-face interview of its kind since the stroke. For the interview, NBC provided Fetterman with closed captioning.

Burns’s remark regarding Fetterman’s mental acuity was met with a swift and furious rebuke from Democratic voters, Democratic operatives, and, most importantly, members of the press.

“I interviewed him — there were absolutely no issues,” MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle said in a since-deleted tweet. “I probably stumbled more.”

Said New York magazine’s Rebecca Traister: “As someone who has recently interviewed him: Fetterman’s comprehension is not at all impaired. He understands everything, it’s just that he reads it (which requires extra acuity, I’d argue) and responds in real-time. It’s a hearing/auditory processing challenge.”

On Oct. 12, BuzzFeed News sought out an activist who warned Burns’s comment could lead to “violence towards disabled people.”

Fetterman’s wife, Gisele, even demanded “consequences” for Burns’s remark, adding NBC News should also issue an apology.

Nearly as noteworthy as the overreaction from journalists and the Fetterman fan club (redundant, I know) was the near-total lack of pushback from Burns’s peers. The silence, as they say, was deafening. Burns was ruthlessly dogpiled, and few, if any, in the corporate press saw fit to say, “Back off. She merely reported what she saw.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Gone are the days of reporters reflexively defending their colleagues against criticism from politicos and activists. Gone are the days of “this is such a dangerous attack on the bulwark of our democracy.”

Now that former President Donald Trump is out of office, there’s apparently little social value to performative acts of “resistance” and public chest-thumping regarding the sanctity and importance of the Fourth Estate.

Well, not when it involves a Democrat in a competitive Senate race, anyway.