In retrospect, we should have known that the mainstream news media would be actively campaigning for the Democrats in 2008 when the New York Times, often referred to as the “flagship” of the MSM, ran a bizarre, inexcusable hit piece on John McCain as a front page story, alleging, via anonymous sources, not that McCain was involved in a Bill Clinton-style inappropriate relationship with a comely female lobbyist eight years earlier, but that unnamed staffers at the time were “concerned” that they were too friendly to each other. What followed was the most openly biased coverage in U.S. presidential campaign history, with candidate Obama repeatedly featured in messianic poses on magazine covers, virtually no media vetting of his background and a full-out, often sexist assault on the GOP Vice-Presidential candidate for being unqualified (though she had far more relevant experience than the Democratic presidential candidate),and for being a dummy, while the hilariously addled Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate was treated like a beloved eccentric uncle.
From an ethics standpoint, it didn’t matter that McCain was an awful candidate, that the chance to elect a black President was irresistible and that once the economy collapsed, the Democrats could have nominated a deaf pangolin and still won with ease. What mattered was that the media proved itself biased, unprofessional and untrustworthy as never before. I was nauseated by the debacle, but always optimistic, thought there was a chance that U.S. journalists would eventually wake up from their Obama fever, admit that they betrayed their professional duty and reform. Sadly, the problem has only worsened.
We are now seeing, even earlier than before, that the news media is prepared to throw cheap shot blocks on anyone, Democrat or Republican, who threatens the Presidential path of Hillary Clinton. Everyone—yes even Clinton supporters, as soul-dead and corrupt as they must by definition be—should be alarmed by this. It means that the United States has no objective news media, but one that is in league with, rather than exposing and challenging, entrenched power. Democracy won’t work thus encumbered. This should be a bipartisan issue.
The New York Times has equalled its John McCain fiasco with a pair of embarrassing attacks on Marco Rubio, first exposing the disqualifying scandal of his wife’s poor driving record (Hillary hasn’t driven in decades—chauffeurs, you know) and then the damning fact that he isn’t rich as Croesus and thus has no business purchasing, for example, a new home. This, like the McCain gossip, was deemed front page worthy. Even Jon Stewart, who comes to the defense of Republicans as often as he makes a joke about Obama, was appalled, devoting a five minute rant to mocking the Times.
Stewart noted the Times’ reporting of the Rubios’ purchase in 2005 of a larger home for $550,000 in 2005 that included, according to the paper, “an in-ground pool, a handsome brick driveway, meticulously manicured shrubs and oversize windows.” Calling the story “inconsequential gossip,” and asking, “How is this front-page news?,” he said,
“What’s The New York Times going to do? Exercise editorial control? No. … It’s like their motto says: ‘Don’t hate the paper, hate the game.’”
“Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel.”
Sanders interrupted, “Well, no I do not have dual citizenship with Israel. I’m an American. I don’t know where that question came from. I am an American citizen, and I have visited Israel on a couple of occasions. No, I’m an American citizen, period.”
“I understand from a list we have gotten that you were on that list, forgive me if that is [untrue.]” Rehm said. She later apologized. Sure she did! Mission accomplished! As Jewish Journal noted, Rehm’s “list” was probably the one that has circulated on the Internet for several years concerning U.S. government officials and members of Congress who allegedly hold dual citizenship with Israel, making them, the theory goes, agents of a successful Israeli effort to manipulate U.S. policy. Why wouldn’t veteran journalist Rehm, as fair and ethical journalism demands, check her facts before asserting a falsehood?
Ann Althouse’s explanation seems astute:
“It was only last weekend that Bernie Sanders shocked the Clinton campaign in the Wisconsin straw poll by getting 41% to Hillary’s 49%. He’s not an amusing sideline anymore. What can be done to keep Democrats from drifting his way? An outright lie about him doesn’t work, does it? Well, yes it does! It made everyone take notice that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. He’s not an Israeli citizen. That’s cleared up, but the impression remains: He’s Jewish. That stirs up any free-floating anti-Jewishness that may be useful to his opponent. It stirs up suspicion that Sanders feels affiliated with Israel in a way that is inconsistent with the American presidency. I’m sure many people hadn’t even noticed that Sanders is Jewish, and now we all know that, and we know additional facts. From the first link above, which goes to Politico: “Sanders, who is Jewish, has visited Israel several times and spent several months working on a communal farm called a Kibbutz in the 1960s.” That’s all powerfully useful to Hillary. Am I supposed to believe this was a mere oopsie by a nice old lady?”
Stumping for Obama was unethical, but the mainstream media’s journalists, being human and none too bright, could be cut a little slack (though not by me) for their enthusiasm for a fresh, eloquent young black man who spoke persuasively of bringing us together, restoring peace and making America respected again abroad. Doing the same for a corrupt, cynical, dishonest candidate like Clinton, however, is the journalism equivalent of treason.
Sources: Politico 1,2, NYT, Althouse
17 thoughts on “Media Cheap Shots For Hillary”
“I’m sure many people hadn’t even noticed that Sanders is Jewish …” Ummm, perhaps people without ears or common sense, Anne. But most everyone else had figured it out this closely-guarded ‘secret.’
I didn’t know, and hadn’t thought about it, since I couldn’t care less. Ann apparently didn’t know either. That’s two relatively engaged voters—I’m sure there are others, and others who WOULD care. There are very, very few Jewish candidates for President in our history, and no nominees for President, only VP, and only one.
Would it be safe to assume from this that Democrats are anti-Semitic? We already know they are anti-Israel.
I’ve seen a large amount of anti-Semitism from the left, which is why it surprises me that so many Jewish people (largely secular Jews) identify as progressives.
To be honest, it doesn’t just surprise me, I am dumbfounded. First, I would think that every Jew would support Israel, and I’d be wrong. Second, I’d think every Jew would be absolutely against an American President that seems to care more about Islamic Terrorists than Israel, and, again, I’d be wrong. I have no idea what these people, who have a reputation for being intelligent, are thinking.
This article is about as close as I’ve seen to explaining it. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203440104574402591116901498
Thanks, Dan. Really interesting article, but it still leaves me scratching my head a bit. Is it going to take a full-fledged pogrom to convince them that the Democrats have neither Jewish nor Israel’s best interests at heart? I hope it isn’t, because the Democrats are perfectly capable of it.
The Democrats are as anti-anything as it takes to get elected, though they do have their share of out and out haters like former Senator and Klan member Byrd. They are anti-Israel because the left tends to identify with those who cry oppression, like the Palestinian Arabs. They are anti-Catholic because abortion trumps all. They mock Baptists and Mormons for being generally conservative and cleaving to traditional marriage. They are generally anti-religious, or at best view their religion as spiritualized leftism, but are happy to get the moral boost it can provide or use it to point up how conservatives are not living up to their faith or ideals.
Most of the Jewish liberals are Jewish in name only like Barney Frank and Sarah Silverman, who couldn’t tell you what a ketubah or a shamash were. However, they look the other way on Islam, because there is a large population here to generate grievances from. P.S., the New York Slimes is owned and operated by progressive Jews, and sometimes referred to as the Jew York Times in darker days.
The main “snakebite” point Diane Rehm was trying to make is that Sanders could be more allied with Israel than the Democratic base is comfortable with, not like Hilary, who’s tirelessly working for peace in that area of the world. Never mind that it’s not true, never mind that anyone who looks even a little more closely at Sanders’ record is going to know that it isn’t true and doesn’t fit his ideology. It’s now out there that someone, somewhere on the radio said that Sanders is a little too close to Israel, and that’s what they are counting on voters to remember and give them pause before they pull the lever. I’m not sure it’s going to be as easy to snakebite either of the other Democrat candidates (O’Malley, Chafee), but neither of them has caught fire yet, and they never may.
The snakebite attacks on GOP candidates will keep coming, but, at least for right now, there are too many of them for the mainstream media to target all at once. Further, if they target the ones they think might have a chance of going somewhere early like they have with Rubio, they risk tipping their hand and having those candidates plug holes, get out in front of issues they need to, and generally step up their game before they can do maximum damage.
Of course, it shouldn’t be coming to that. The media should be challenging all candidates equally, not becoming a mouthpiece for one party, leave alone one candidate. However, here we are. The media and the Democratic party are counting on a very lazy American electorate to simply pull the lever for the candidate with the most name recognition and the least amount of negative association. That candidate will be Hilary if they have anything to say about it, and in fact they want to be the only voice with something to say, or at least the only voice that counts. That’s why they are busy trying to slime Fox as simply being a mouthpiece for the conservative side and therefore not trustworthy. That they can do that while they are just the opposite should tell you all you need to know, but, again, they are counting on you being lazy.
That one will fail, and badly.
“They are anti-Israel because the left tends to identify with those who cry oppression, like the Palestinian Arabs.”
Does the Left hate Israel because Palestinians are “under dogs” or does the Left hate Israel because Israel is a little island of near-America in the middle east, and the Left, whether or not anyone will openly admit it, hates American values?
The former, I think. The Palestinians are oppressed victims, and the history of how their refusal to abandon blood hatred of Jews got them to their current state (haha) isn’t known or understood. A lot of progressives compare them to Native Americans.
What is disqualifying about being Jewish? Or being sympathetic to Israel? I would think, in a sane world, being Jewish would be no more remarkable than being white or straight or Christian or… Oh, never mind, I get it.
Often I’m willing to overlook errors from being new at the job and incompetent. This is far past that. As this seems to be building to a hatchet job by fourth estate, they can’t accuse him of being soft on terrorism if he’s pro-israel, can they? Wait they will, because they are throwing spaghetti until it sticks. Of the two, I like Mr Sanders more. He has conviction in his views and can play with others.
Bernie honeymooned in Soviet Russia. What else do you need to know about the guy?
Of course HRC does uranium deals for “ex” KGB guys while she’s the U.S. Secretary of State.
But Diane Rehm? She’s a clown Jack.
We have never had an objective media. (Maybe for a few golden years in Edward R. Murrow’s prime, but probably not even then.) The only unique thing about today’s media bias is that it is so ideologically monolithic.
Journalistic objectivity is an incredibly harmful fiction.