Liberal Media: From Watch Dog to Lap Dog

31 May, 2015 by Rick Jensen

Print this article Font size -16+

Democrats are now yelling, “Me, too!” at the national press.

Newt Gingrich basked in the glory of delighting millions of conservatives and moderate Republicans by taking philandering CNN debate moderator John King to task for airing Newt’s familial foibles in the very first salvo of Mr. King’s left-wing verbal volleys.

“Your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News, another interview with ‘The Washington Post,’ and this story has now gone viral on the Internet,” King said on the evening of January 19, 2012. “She says you came to her in 1999 at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her [for] an open marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?”

“No, but I will,” Gingrich sternly retorted. “I think the destructive, vicious negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country; harder to attract decent people to run for public office. I’m appalled you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.”

King stammered, incompetently tried to blame the question on some other reportage and backed down when Gingrich verbally piked him on his own petard of cowardice.

Newt was thus knighted as another defender of the realm’s truth brigade.

When reporter Ed Henry recently asked Hillary if she would take questions from the press during a roundtable with supporters, she smiled haughtily and purred, “I might”. She then mimed writing a note while mockingly saying she’ll make a note of it. Her core audience laughed approvingly.

Political Consultant and Hillary cheerleader Peter Rosenstein is providing as much media flak as he can get published, claiming the New York Times and Washington Post reporters’ accounts of Hillary’s scandals are “false” while supporting her decision to avoid talking to the press at all costs.

And the costs would likely be dear, considering the veracity of investigative reporter Peter Schweizer’s work in his bestseller, “Clinton Cash.”

Conservatives have been repelled by front page opining and liberal government support in the major media for so many decades that financially healthy livings are offered by organizations such as “Newsbusters,” “Breitbart” and the Media Research Center’s “Times Watch,” reporting on the leftist bias in the major media.

Fox News launched into cable dominance by treating conservative intellectuals, politicians and pundits with some respect, in direct opposition to the likes of Dan Rather, whose network broadcasts were replete with disdain of every style of conservativism.

Caught using fake documentation to disparage President Bush, Rather is now relegated to celebrity status on the Russian RT, MSNBC and AXS cable channels.

Liberals such as Hillary who really has something to hide, from gunrunning weapons to jihadis through Benghazi to the email server scandal and collecting hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign governments while Secretary of State, apparently believe they can adopt a tactic of claiming bias that doesn’t really apply to them.

Every rule has an exception.

The Times and Washington Post are, indeed, covering the Clinton cash scandal because it is quite a story; one that no reputable news organization can refuse to ignore considering the inevitable blowback when Americans push back against nuclear deals more favorable to the Russians and India than the U.S.

The only tactic she has right now is to avoid those annoyingly meaningful questions and hire staff to reply by saying she’s doing more listening than talking, answering over 20 questions from people at roundtables and listening to over 117 questions.

Yes, the Clinton Campaign is counting questions. It sure beats answering the ones that could cost her your vote!

Socialist Bernie Sanders has supporters who are blaming the media for “ignoring” his feckless campaign.

Even though the New York Times has published at least a half dozen favorable articles on Sanders, liberals call “foul” when an article in “Politico.com” notes his followers lack the central-casting appearance of Hillary’s astro-turfed roundtables.

The difference is that Hillary is running an incumbent campaign.

She presumes the presidency is hers.

Neither she nor Sanders need worry about an unfair national press.

And only Hillary needs to deny the politically fatal answers to genuinely important questions.

Also See,

Christie Dead Wrong About Spying