Nine days after the election, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin conceded defeat on Thursday. A year after her defeat, Georgia's Stacey Abrams maintains she was robbed. Ashe Schow at the Daily Wire pointed out this week that NPR has a very different standard on this score for Republicans and Democrats.
Last Sunday, NPR tweeted this about Bevin:
Without providing evidence, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin questioned the election’s legitimacy. And he isn’t the first politician to do so. Elections specialists worry that unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud erode confidence in democracy.”
NPR's online story was headlined "Skeptics Urge Bevin To Show Proof Of Fraud Claims, Warning Of Corrosive Effects."
Ten days after she lost in Georgia and (sort of) admitted she lost, NPR's tweet had a different sound:
In a fiery speech, Abrams insisted this was no normal concession, decrying what she called the "deliberate and intentional" voter suppression by Kemp that she believes led to this result in the Georgia governor's race.
Abrams didn't have a "without providing evidence" jab. No "election specialists" were located to talk about how Abramas was undermined democracy. Schow pointed out the evidence didn't look good for Abrams: voter participation doubled in the midterm compared to 2014.
NPR's online headline last year on this story was "Georgia's Stacey Abrams Admits Defeat, Says Kemp Used 'Deliberate' Suppression To Win."
It's the usual NPR double-standard: Please your liberal "membership drive" audience by always making liberals the subject of the story. "Abrams" led the Abrams story, while "Skeptics" of Bevin ruining democracy led the Bevin story.
