The Media’s Kavanaugh Hypocrisy

September 29th, 2018 4:00 PM

Well. This has been an interesting media week, yes?

The liberal “mainstream” media just exploded on Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his nomination to be a Supreme Court Justice. But there’s something very curious here.

Take the case of liberal Democratic Senator from Ohio Sherrod Brown.

Here’s the story as reported by Breitbart’s Joel Pollak. The headline? Flashback: Democrats Defended Sen. Sherrod Brown Against Wife Abuse Claims

Joel wrote, in part, this (click “expand”): 

When Ohio State Treasurer Josh Mandel noted in 2012 that Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) had been accused of abusing his wife, liberals accused Mandel of abusing women by raising the issue.

Rita Smith, executive director of the Denver-based National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, declined at the time to criticize Brown. Instead, she defended Brown’s voting record on women’s issues. And she told an interviewer that Mandel’s attack on Brown was “actually abusive,” because he is putting Brown’s family, including his former wife, in a negative spotlight, “and that is abusive of women.”

That is how many Democrats really feel about politicians who abuse women. As long as they have a “D” after their names, and vote for abortion, they are almost incapable of abuse.

And where was the massive media coverage on this? The saturation-style coverage that has been given to Judge Brett Kavanaugh or, earlier, then-Trump White House aide Rob Porter, the latter who was accused — with documentation — of domestic abuse? Coverage that comes replete with the demands for resignation?

That coverage was not there on Brown. The story appeared briefly, and sank out of sight faster than a stone dropped in the ocean. But yet, here’s this from CNBC headlining: “Top Democrats call for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's withdrawal”

This gem tells us: 

Top Democrats pushed for President Donald Trump to withdraw the nomination of his Supreme Court choice Brett Kavanaugh after the latest explosive allegations against the judge.

In a letter to Trump dated Wednesday, all Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee urged the president to pull the appeals judge's nomination or “direct the FBI to re-open its background investigation” to examine accusations of sexual misconduct. The members of the panel, which oversees judicial nominations, argued that the claims against Kavanaugh are more than enough “to trigger a meaningful nonpartisan investigation.”

What story will you not find out there? Demands from the media that Senator Brown must resign from the Senate. Nor will you find questions from the media to all those Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee as to why they are not demanding their Ohio colleague’s resignation. And recall. What is the standard Democrats have advanced for insisting on Kavanaugh’s guilt? Not evidence. No, no.

As The Wall Street Journal has noted, the new standard is this:

Half of the Senate Judiciary Committee created this standard: “I believe Christine.”

It is an inescapable irony that the Kavanaugh Standard—“I believe”—is being established inside the context of a nomination to the highest U.S. court. This new standard for court nominees (and surely others in and outside politics) would be that judgment can be rendered in the absence of substantive argument or any legal standard relating to corroboration, cross-examination or presumption of innocence.” 

Yet as Joel Pollak has quite accurately reported, the story about Senator Brown is not an “I believe” story — it is about documented evidence in a legal proceeding. Here is an earlier Breitbart story about the allegations against Brown by then-Breitbart journalist Ben Shapiro. Ben wrote this (click “expand”): 

In May 1986, Larke Brown filed for divorce from her husband, then Ohio Secretary of State Sherrod Brown (who, in court filings, called himself S. Campbell Brown). In her divorce complaint, she alleged that Sherrod had been guilty of “extreme cruelty toward her.”

Larke filed for a motion for a restraining order against Sherrod Brown (below). The motion asked the court to stop Sherrod from “harassing, including telephone harassment, annoying, interfering with or doing bodily harm to this Plaintiff at her residence or elsewhere.” The affidavit to the motion alleged that Larke believed that unless restrained, Sherrod would “harass” or “do bodily harm” to her; she further stated, “I am also intimidated by the Defendant and am in fear for the safety and well-being of myself and our children due to the Defendant’s physical violence and abusive nature.”

The restraining order was granted by the court, and prevented Brown from “harassing, including telephone harassment, annoying, interfering with or doing bodily harm to this Plaintiff at her residence or elsewhere.” In fact, the restraining order enjoined Brown from “coming in or around the Plaintiff’s residence … except for purposes of visitation with the parties’ minor children.”

If the liberal media were so concerned as to devote massive attention to a 36-year old, evidence-free allegation from high school concerning Judge Kavanaugh — then it would stand to reason that the Sherrod Brown case would be receiving the same kind of massive attention. But it isn’t. Why?

Senator Brown is a liberal Democrat who is a staunch supporter of Roe v. Wade, the number one liberal sacrament. Therefore the story about his messy divorce replete with allegations from his then-wife that hint at domestic violence not in high school but when Brown was a full adult holding office as the Ohio Secretary of State are considered in all those liberal media newsrooms as....not news. Just one big no big deal.

And right there, in a snapshot, is exactly the problem with the liberal media. Like liberals in other professions — the law, academics, religion, the film industry and more — their liberalism comes first, their actual profession second. Recall this 1998 story, wonderfully archived here at the Media Research Center. The headline: “Former TIME Reporter's Eye-Popping Confession About Clinton: ‘I'd Be Happy to Give Him [Oral Sex] Just to Thank Him for Keeping Abortion Legal’; Bozell: ‘An Apt Metaphor For How The Media Have Treated Clinton Since He First Ran For President’”

The story said (click “expand”): 

ALEXANDRIA, Va. --- Media Research Center Chairman Brent Bozell reacted with only modest surprise at the admission by former Time magazine White House correspondent Nina Burleigh that she would give President Clinton oral sex "just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." Ms. Burleigh's eye-popping confession comes in an interview with the Washington Post after her revealing essay in the latest issue of Mirabella magazine in which she admits she would have been open to having an affair with Clinton.

“I want to thank Nina Burleigh for coming clean and finally providing all of America with an apt metaphor for how the national media have treated Bill Clinton since he first ran for office,” Bozell said.

Burleigh told the Washington Post: “I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.” Describing what she perceived as the president's flirting with her aboard Air Force One during a game of Hearts, she wrote in Mirabella: “If he had asked me to continue the game of Hearts back in his room at the Jasper Holiday Inn, I would have been happy to go there and see what happened.”

Bozell added: “In graphic terms Nina Burleigh has exposed the media's love affair with Clinton's liberal policies. This is why so much of the establishment press gives Bill Clinton such a pass on scandals that would have brought down any other president.”

Today simply substitute the name “Sherrod Brown” for “Bill Clinton” and the exact same liberal media rules apply. Brown gets a total pass for a court-documented record that accuses him of “harassing, including telephone harassment, annoying, interfering with or doing bodily harm to this Plaintiff at her residence or elsewhere.” And the liberal media yawns. Not to mention that his liberal Senate colleagues - notably including the most out-there Kavanaugh critics Senators Mazie Hirono (HI) and Kamala Harris (CA) — are totally, completely silent.

But Brett Kavanaugh? In the eyes of the liberal media he could be the fifth vote that would overturn Roe v. Wade. So there is no allegation, no charge - including gang rape - that is too much to make and cover saturation-style.

As the Judge himself said, what has unfolded this week is not a confirmation process but a “search and destroy” operation choreographed by liberals in the Senate and in the media.

This confirmation process was a disgusting, shameful circus. And make no mistake, if Kavanaugh vanished today and were replaced with another nominee the liberal media would lead yet another charge to repeat this circus all over again.