Scott Whitlock noted earlier today that CBS and NBC skipped over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bad jokes about Asians (you’re not really the smartest, I can’t keep my Wongs straight). Additional Nexis transcript searches for “Harry Reid” and “Asian” show no mention on NPR, the PBS NewsHour, and even CNN and MSNBC (at least the transcripts they send to Nexis).
But what about newspapers? Surely, the “every “ reported this? No. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today skipped over it, too. The Washington Post covered it, but Post political reporter Aaron Blake strangely argued that Reid is so gaffe-prone he’s “almost built up a gaffe immunity”:
"George W. Bush is a racist." Those where the first words I heard about modern American politics when I came here to study back in 2000. How did my friends know? Well, he was the Republican candidate. I wouldn’t want to be associated with someone like that, so I became a Democrat.
That scenario is not uncommon. That is how a large number of Hispanics get their feet wet in American politics. Conservatives are against other races, other countries and the poor, aren’t they? That general view of distrust for those racist southern conservatives is reinforced constantly in the media. Not that they are all racists, but everyone knows about that elusive “racist element” discussed all day on MSNBC and every day in the pages of the New York Times. The same narrative is showcased on Univision and in Hispanic newspapers all over the country.
However, four polls were released during the past week that resulted in the same message: ObamaCare isn't getting any more popular -- and probably won't in the future, according to an article published in Tuesday's edition of the Washington Post by reporters Scott Clement and Aaron Blake.
Townhall's Guy Benson today took Washington Post's Aaron Blake and Vox.com senior editor Sarah Kliff to task for uncritically furthering Obama White House spin that 5 million Americans have successfully registered for ObamaCare.
This is patently false, Benson charges, noting that, at best, the number is somewhere closer to 4 million, assuming the very generous estimate of a 20 percent "non-payment" rate on the registered policies. Benson explains (emphasis mine):
Of the nation's three most respected papers of record -- the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal -- only the latter portrayed accurately the religious freedom legislation -- click here for a .pdf of the bill, SB 1062 -- which Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) vetoed Wednesday evening.
Both reporter Tamara Audi and her editors treated Journal readers to a fairly balanced and objective treatment of the veto and the purpose of the underlying legislation. "Veto Kills Arizona Religious Measure," noted the headline on page A2 of the February 27 paper. By contrast, the headers for the print stories at the Washington Post and New York Times were loaded.
Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed of a day when the content of one's character, not the color of one's skin, was how Americans would evaluate each other. So when NAACP official and African-American clergyman the Rev. William Barber made statements fundamentally violative of the spirit of that dream on the Sunday preceding the federal Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, you'd think it noteworthy for the liberal media. Not so much. At least, not when the target is conservative Sen. Tim Scott.
On Sunday evening at a church in Columbia, South Carolina, the Palmetto State's junior Republican senator was compared to a ventriloquist's dummy by Mr. Barber, who heads up North Carolina's chapter of the civil rights organization. For his part, Washington Post reporter and Post Politics blogger Aaron Blake hacked out a brief entry just before 2 p.m. on Tuesday which simply relayed to readers the controversial remarks, but failed to do any significant follow-up to add anything of value to the story, like say trying to pin down the national NAACP leadership for comment. Blake did, however, add an update which included Sen. Scott's reaction, and it reads as follows:
Could you imagine The Washington Post leaping all over a Jeremiah Wright scandal for Obama in 2005, before he even announced for president? Neither would anyone else imagine such a political crib-strangling. But the Post is aping the rest of the liberal national media on Thursday morning by leaping all over Gov. Chris Christie. “Bridge scandal engulfing Christie,” was the breathless headline. “INCIDENT THREATENS N.J. GOVERNOR’S IMAGE.”
The Post also trashed Christie on the op-ed page (by liberal Jonathan Capehart) and on the front page of the Style section, which began “Chris Christie. [Shakes head.] What a disappointment. He purports to play in big leagues.” The partisan Post is on fire today.
It's not just conservatives who think it's a horrible idea for NBC to run a Hillary Clinton miniseries before the 2016 election. Network anchor Chuck Todd worries about the perception of bias, even as he insists that there's a tall wall of separation between his network's news and entertainment divisions.
Birtherism isn't all that bad to the liberal media when a rising conservative star may be the target. Just ask the Washington Post and the New York Times, two liberal papers that devoted serious attention to the question of whether Cruz might be constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.
Post staffers Ed O’Keefe and Aaron Blake devoted an article to the matter in the May 7 paper's Style section: the question of Cruz’s eligibility for the presidency. He was born in Canada, but had an American mother, thus making him eligible for 2016, but O'Keefe and Blake glommed on to the fact that the hypothetical objection that one must be born on American soil to be "natural born" has never been definitively adjudicated. This isn't isolated to the Washington Post.
The “nonpartisan” Organizing for Action is using the president’s twitter account. How is that not a violation of their 501 (c) (4) status? They’re selling access to the president. The site’s URL is Barackobama.com, and they recently made the decision to not disclose their donors, which seems to be fine with the D.C. watchdog community. Under Bush, this conduct would’ve drawn vociferous reactions from the political left, but Obama has the left and the media cowed.
Aaron Blake reported for the Washington Post on March 22, that the OFA was going to share the president’s Twitter account.
The conventional wisdom has emerged that in order to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff,” politicians in Washington must agree to some method of tax increases (“revenue”) – which will be real, even if low taxes are not the cause of our ills -- alongside some kind of promise of spending restraint on entitlement programs, which is our problem, and which no one believes Washington will restrain.
The American left and our “objective” journalists – same thing, I know – are not helping the nation balance its budget. As usual, these partisan hacks are obsessed with tearing the Republican coalition apart, limb from limb. By empowering the GOP moderates, they drive the conservatives into exile. These liberals are dishonest, but not dumb. They have no intention of honoring a pledge to curtail wasteful spending. What they want is GOP civil war.
Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake told CNN on Tuesday that candidate George W. Bush "just didn't pay a high enough price" in the 2000 election for his DUI arrest that occurred more than 20 years prior.
Blake was talking about famous "October surprises," or unforseen events occurring in the month before the election that could be game-changing. The Bush DUI revelation was a hit job planted by a Democratic source that mushroomed into a big story because of the liberal media. [Video below the break. Audio here.]
The liberal media can’t seem to help themselves. While counter-arguments are occasionally acknowledged, most journalists of the progressive persuasion are not interested in fair and balanced coverage of politics. Facts and figures are seemingly subjective in the whole scheme of things. Severely limited studies and polls seem to provide them with all the information they need. Oh, and almost everything is racist.
The Washington Post has been one of most reliable offenders, as far as daily publications are concerned. For example, Rosalind Helderman, Jon Cohen and Aaron Blake collaborated on a report that was published today suggesting the “Republican Party base is white, aging and dying off.” This is according to an “extensive analysis" by David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
Sunday on ABC, as Rush Limbaugh noted on his show yesterday, Obama campaign senior adviser and former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney a "schoolyard bully."
Just a couple of hours later (the time stamp is noon on Sunday), what little is left of Newsweek published "Mitt Romney's Wimp Factor." Zheesh -- So which is it?
Local DC conservative talker Chris Plante announced that Washington Post political writer Aaron Blake on Wednesday had “just exposed your own bias” for this sentence as he delighted in Newt Gingrich’s high unfavorable ratings: “Sarah Palin, even at her most divisive, never saw her unfavorable rating rise above 60 percent in the CNN poll. And even when Republicans were demonizing Nancy Pelosi in the runup to the 2010 election, her unfavorable rating never climbed beyond the high-50s.”
Palin was “divisive” in the active voice, while Pelosi was passively demonized by Republicans. Blake began by citing a joke from Al Franken as a “fun fact” of some kind:
On Monday, NewsBusters broke a story about Washington Post blogger Aaron Blake using Twitter to dig up dirt on Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.
On Tuesday, the former House Speaker spoke to St. Louis radio host and Big Journalism editor Dana Loesch about this saying, "It’s a little sad to see a paper the quality of the Washington Post stoop to...the National Enquirer approach to life" adding they "would rather worry about rumors about conservatives than facts about the President" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
The Washington Post should either fire Aaron Blake or "acknowledge that it doesn't have a semblance of objectivity left to it," NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell told Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto on his Your World program this afternoon.
The Media Research Center (MRC) founder was reacting to this November 28 tweet by the Post political blogger (video of segment follows page break):
Yesterday on "The Fix", a politics blog of the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake wrote "Five Members to watch in the House debt ceiling vote." One of the five is Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT). He's described as a potential "yes" vote for Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) debt ceiling bill:
Matheson, a Democrat, has managed to keep his Republican-leaning Utah seat by voting very conservatively since being elected in 2000.
So let's see what The Fix considers voting not just conservatively, but very conservatively. Project Vote Smart collects ratings given by a wide variety of special-interest organizations. Matheson's record shows that for 2010 the American Conservative Union gave him a grade of 17 percent. The National Taxpayers Union assigned him a 39 percent and Citizens Against Government Waste awarded him an 11 percent. He did substantially better with the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, which gave him an 80 percent rating. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People determined he voted in their interests 75 percent of the time for the period 2009-2010, and the American Civil Liberties Union rated him at 56 percent for the same period.