Media objectivity is no longer an objective for main-stream news organizations

In today’s Wall Street Journal column William McGurn makes a compelling argument that the concept of objectivity is ancient history among the major news media outlets.

McGurn notes that most of the press has failed to press Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on the authenticity of the emails reportedly found on his son Hunter’s abandoned laptop.

“The elder Mr. Biden dismisses it all as Russian disinformation, though both the director of National Intelligence and the Federal Bureau of Investigation say there’s no evidence for that,” the column states. “Specifically, Mr. Biden has yet to say that the emails are phony and the laptop isn’t his son’s. Then again, he has never had to say that because the media won’t press him on it.”

Noting that the New York Post news stories on this topic were also suppressed on Twitter and Facebook, McGurn suggests, “The rationale appears to be that Mr. Biden can’t handle the questions and the American people can’t be trusted to handle the answers.”

One of the more obvious examples of what the columnist calls the “see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil approach” to Biden is illustrated by how the New York Times handled former Biden Senate staffer Tara Reade’s claim she was sexually accosted by Biden in 1993. When a woman accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of participating in gang rapes at high-school parties, the Times run the story on the same day it came out even though there was no corroboration. Reade’s accusation was not reported for 19 days.

McGurn also points out the slow pitch softball question Biden got from a magazine reporter about anonymous claims that President Trump disparaged dead American soldiers. “When you hear these remarks — ‘suckers,’ ‘losers,’ ‘recoiling from amputees,’ what does that tell you about President Trump’s soul and the life he leads?” Biden was asked.

McGurn concludes:

The best summary of the new standard in election coverage was given by Mark Hemingway of RealClearInvestigations. After a particularly fawning news conference, he relayed the assessment of a friend: Watching the press handle Joe Biden is “like watching someone make sure a 3 year old wins Candyland.”

19 comments on “Media objectivity is no longer an objective for main-stream news organizations

  1. Bill says:

    It perhaps has always been so but what is particularly galling is the self righteous pretense of impartiality by the media all the while wrapping themselves in the First Amendment. At least William Randolph Hearst made little pretense of impartiality. Perhaps it is time to look at revisiting Anti-Trust statutes.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Glad to see you got your voice back again Thomas. Not a surprise that it happened just in time for you to attack the left and no so coincidentally the democratic presidential nominee.

    Maybe just what you needed to wake yourself up out of the slumber you’ve been in for almost 4 years is a democrat to attack. And it appears you’re soon going to have lots more of them around so that’s good for everyone.

    Speaking just for me I’d love to see your recommendations for office this cycle along with any predictions yo might have that we can….discuss.

    I’ll put myself out there in advance and say that the democrats sweep the elections and regain the Senate, the White House, and increase their lead in the House.

    Votes are pouring in, and so many new, younger voters in all the swing states especially. Do you think Trump wins Texas?

  3. No predictions, just hopes that voters do the right thing.

  4. Rincon says:

    While it’s ironic that the WSJ, which mediabiasfactcheck rates as, mostly factual” (3rd out of 6) is complaining about selective reporting, I agree that the mainstream media is playing softball, but in light of the curious timing, I think it’s reasonable. Unlike Fox News with other stories, they didn’t bury the story on page 27. They duly reported the facts, but failed to pound it over and over like they did with say, the recent racial protests. The question is whether an incident with no convincing proof of authenticity, which provides no convincing evidence that any crime was committed, when the chief alleged malefactor is a candidate’s son rather than the candidate himself, and where there is apparently, “no collusion” deserves the breathless and relentless coverage that Fox News is providing. Only a die hard Conservative would say it does.

    There is one somewhat incriminating piece of evidence, but it’s very similar to many of Trump’s scandals in that Biden never specifically denied that the computer in question belonged to Hunter or that the Emails in question were genuine. You’ve always been happy when Trump used that approach – ordering the White House Staff to defy Congressional subpoenas comes to mind – so is refusing to address a charge specifically only OK when Trump is the one doing it? You seem to think so.

    My own opinion is that probably the Emails are genuine, but compared to Trump’s list of shenanigans, this rates about a 2 on the Richter scale.

  5. Athos says:

    “My own opinion is that probably the Emails are genuine, but compared to Trump’s list of shenanigans, this rates about a 2 on the Richter scale.” Well why would a leftist China sympathizer think anything less, Rin?

    The scandal is Joe Biden taking graft from China. At least the Clinton’s used their Foundation (still odious, but legal according to the stupid laws politicians write for themselves). Joe just used his brother!

    As to “…pound it over and over…” are you referring to the Mueller commission and the daily “tick tick tick – we got em now” coverage provided for over 2 years by the MSM? And then the seque into impeachment? That coverage?

  6. Rincon says:

    I think you’re referring to Biden’s son, not brother. Your position with Trump and Ukraine was that the holding up of the aid to Ukraine and the phone call requesting an “investigation” (wink) into the Bidens does not show a quid pro quo. By that logic, please show me any quid pro quo between China and the Bidens, and while you’re at it, tell me how much money changed hands and what evidence there is for these charges.

    As for the Mueller commission, try to tell me with a straight face that the media didn’t cover the Bill and Monika show with at least the same intensity. Clinton is a Democrat, yes?

  7. Athos says:

    Why do Leftist always change the subject when they’re losing an argument? But just to bite (cause I can’t resist) Mueller was a big nothing burger and Monika had a blue dress.

    And you’re obviously behind in the reporting (cause MSM isn’t touching this Biden Laptop story) but according to Tony Bobolinski, James Biden share in the $10million retainer given to the Bidens company (Sinohawk Holdings) from CEFC (a Chinese Company) double from 10 to 20% (to thus cover money for the “Big Guy”)

    One more thing, Rin. In order to show “quid pro quo” you have to have a quid or a pro. Ukraine didn’t investigate Hunter, but Trump(the US) released the money. Or do you have some other information?

  8. Rincon says:

    What’s MSM?

    Trump only released the money when he had been found out. I suppose you would never convict anyone for attempted murder, since no one was actually killed.

    Amazing that you’re willing to swallow Bobulinski’s story, to which he has never testified, hook, line, and sinker, but somehow gave no credibility at all to four members of Trump’s Administration, 3 of whom testified under oath that there was a quid pro quo? Your double standards are shockingly brazen. Although the Biden story is suspicious, it is also suspiciously timed. Bobulinski’s story has no corroborating witnesses, nor has a paper trail been found so far. I anxiously await more information, but would never convict on such questionable evidence.

  9. Rincon says:

    From tonight’s news re: Hunter Biden’s Emails: “Most mainstream news organizations, including NBC News, have not been granted access to the documents. NBC News asked by email, text, phone call and certified mail, and was ultimately denied.” So far, it seems that only the New York Post, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have been given access to the evidence – all three Conservative propaganda outlets; all three with a “mixed” history of factual reporting according to mediabiasfactcheck Tell me why I should trust a cabal that allows only the “friendliest” news organizations to see the facts?

    And you wonder why they don’t cover it more? The “Conservative conspiracy” doesn’t even want the mainstream media to see the evidence!

  10. Athos says:

    MSM Main Stream Media (CBS, NBC, NPR, NEW YOUR TIMES, ET AL) FYI

    “Trump only released the money when he had been found out. I suppose you would never convict anyone for attempted murder, since no one was actually killed.” Terrible analogy, Rin. Stupid, actually. I hope even you can see that error.

    As to Trumps Ukrainian affair. I know of only 1 person that testified he heard the call. All the other people came by the info second hand. And Vindman gave his OPINION “I thought he was wrong” as if Vindman sets US foreign policy. Not exactly actionable offenses.

    But when the D’s control Congress, they don’t need a consensus of opinion. Just a straight out vote. Kinda like ACB vote in the Senate.(But I thought D’s were the party of “Power to the Woman”?- Gotta ask Cortez Masto and Rosen, next time I see em;) At least the R’s got 31 D’s to vote Clinton’s impeachment. How many R’s voted to impeach Trump?

    As to Tony B. if there’s “nothing” there, why is he being shunned? Even our own local paper (the RJ) put the story on page 4 (or 6, I don’t even remember right now) and it was a paragraph (below the fold) with a picture.

    As to the news trying to get access – how did CBS do with trying to ask Joe B himself? Do you remember that outcome? Why has NO ONE ask Joe if he knows Tony B?

    And why aren’t people parked out in front of Jim Biden’s home trying to ask him?

    And where, oh where, is HUNTER? Didn’t old school reporters used to TRY to run down a story?

  11. Rincon says:

    OK, OK. As long as you believe that 95% of the journalists in America are members of a vast conspiracy, neither one of us has a prayer of persuading the other. We just have to agree to disagree.

  12. Ri says:

    I guess Fox News doesn’t cover things very completely. You say only one witness of a quid pro quo? Here’s a list entitled, “7 officials confirmed Trump tried to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens as part of a quid pro quo — here’s the list”

  13. Rincon says:

    Sorry, I just couldn’t resist. I know you can’t be convinced.

  14. Athos says:

    Convinced of what? That Vindman is a Never Trumper? That the transcript of the call was released (to the D’s surprise!) and didn’t show quid pro quo? That 6 out of the 7 officials did not hear the call but relied on 2nd hand information and their own perceptions (and possible projections) of Trump?

    Meanwhile, we have a laptop, an eyewitness ready to testify and Joe’s own bragging about ” Well, son of a b****, he got fired.” Nothing to see there, is there? (where did I put that blue dress?)

    But I know your minds blocked off and can’t be convinced 😉

  15. Rincon says:

    The so called transcript, which was released only after a whistleblower squealed, was NOT a word for word rendering of the conversation. It was made from notes taken by Trump staffers who knew that their boss might well look it over and discipline the writers if he was displeased. Of course, Trump ordered those who could have clarified everything (and show everybody how innocent Trump was) to defy the subpoenas issued by the House (forever establishing that an impeachment inquiry will never have the power to press testimony from any but those willing to put their head on a chopping block).

    I believe 7 witnesses, all who served Trump, and all or most who were appointed by Trump directly or indirectly, and one who gave a million dollars to Trump’s campaign, along with the fact that, even in the conversation, the quid quo pro was obvious, but not explicit. Hell, even the Mafia just orders their people to “Make him an offer he can’t refuse”. Just as with O.J. Simpson, most sane people believe he did the dirty deed, but neither he nor Trump were convicted because the requirements for proof are very high such that, in theory, a hundred guilty men will go free rather than have a single innocent man be convicted (which, in this country, only applies to those with money and/or connections).

    The “second hand information” included several personal conversations with Trump himself.

  16. Athos says:

    Don’t you ever get tired of lying, Rin? Is America so evil that It’s demise is the only act of attrition you would accept? The ends justify the means but you leftists just want to burn it all down, don’t you?

    Did you run out of statues to destroy?

    Here’s a bit of truth for you. Donald Trump LOVES America. He loves America, warts and all because it is THE GREATEST NATION EVER BORN. And what we’ve (America) accomplished is breath taking compared to any other place on Earth INCLUDING AUSTRALIA!

    Why is that so hard for you to accept and embrace? What nihilistic hole have you crawled out of that prevents you from loving the land of your birth?

  17. Rincon says:

    You sound just like a parent whose little brat can do no wrong. I love our country too, but nothing says that love has to be blind.

  18. Athos says:

    “I love our country too, BUT……” just about says it all, Rin.

  19. Rincon says:

    So you admit that my facts are correct, but you think it’s some kind of blasphemy to bring them up. Got it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s