From The Increasingly Stuffed “Nah, There’s Mo Mainstream Media Bias!” Files: Politico Changes A Headline

What’s going on here? Apparently either a Politico editor or a representative of the Democratic Party/”resistance”/mainstream media alliance to bring down the President (aka The Axis of Unethical Conduct, or AUC) realized that the headline on the left conveyed an unequivocally positive message regarding Trump. That was a violation of the three-year plan, so the change was ordered. It was especially egregious since impeachment is the objective now, based on the narrative that President Trump is a threat to all that is good and right. Can’t have a positive headline now. Come on!

The USMCA is the new United ­States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

[The near unanimous vote in the Senate didn’t include Bernie Sanders (he’s Statler, Joe Biden is Waldorf…or is it the other way around?) because, Bernie says, there was “not a single damn mention” of climate change.]

Can anyone point to an example in the Obama administration where a positive headline regarding a victory for the President was replaced in order to suggest that it was less impressive? Does anyone think there ever was such a case?

Hell, I might even post this one on Facebook to see all the rationalizations and excuses my deranged friends come up with. It should be a hoot. Once again I miss the self-exiled “resistance” commenters here, a bright bunch whose machinations and comical pretzelling in their denials that the news media was biased and no more trustworthy than a rabid honey badger were always worth admiration and mirth.


Pointer: Erin Perrine

Please use this link to post on Facebook, because Mark Z won’t let Ethics Alarms links appear there. Not fake enough, I guess…

14 thoughts on “From The Increasingly Stuffed “Nah, There’s Mo Mainstream Media Bias!” Files: Politico Changes A Headline

  1. In one poll I saw a while back (I believe it was a CBS poll) media ranked more unethical than drug, banking, or tech industries. It’s interesting that the poll disappeared — or at least I couldn’t find it to post on Facebook.

  2. If I can read the timestamps on the images, it appears it took at most 40 minutes for the phone calls to be made and the alterations to be completed. I wonder how much, if any, of the article’s text was modified from the original.

  3. The beauty of electronic media. You can ” fix” until there’s no tomorrow. Reminds me of how in the USSR under Stalin, when some big wig got purged, libraries would be mailed pages to replace the former big wig’s entry in the encyclopedia. To quote Rusty from True Detective, season 1, “Time is a flat circle”.

  4. I do wonder why people in the “resistance” do not find your blog and comment on it.

    Your posts about the impeachment should have incited hundreds of resistance people posting comments defending the impeachment.

  5. On a related note.

    The outlet was much more forgiving when the GAO ruled against the White House in 2014. When the watchdog group found that the Obama administration broke the law by swapping five Taliban terrorists for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the Post downplayed the ruling, saying it would likely become nothing more than a “political talking point.”

    “The review handed opponents of President Obama powerful reinforcement of two of their key critiques: that Obama routinely oversteps his executive authority, and that his maneuvers on foreign policy make the country less safe,” the article said. “But the actual effect of the letter from the nonpartisan agency may be only that—that it becomes a political talking point.”

    The article went on to analyze past GAO rulings of illegality, concluding that “the substance of the charge has always fallen far short of allegations that the chief executive violated federal legislation.”

    Obama responded to the ruling by rejecting the agency’s findings.

    “We strongly disagree with GAO’s conclusion, and we reject the implication that the administration acted unlawfully,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in 2014.

  6. So, let me see if I understand. CNN published stories that the Covington Catholic boys were yelling racial epithets and threatening a Native American. Evidence proved otherwise. The boys sued and CNN settled the case. Now, Brian Stelter is promoting his HBO (?!) program about Fake News. Is the irony list on him?


  7. Sometimes the Lefty press gets their @$$-in-a-sling the Old Fashioned way, where there’s nowhere to hide.

    To wit:

    Recall the Amari Allen October hate crime hoax? Notice any difference in the NYT…um…approach to reportage?

    A) Pre-Debunked-Hoax NYT (10/27/2019) headline: Black Virginia Girl Says White Classmates Cut Her Dreadlocks on Playground

    B) Post-Debunked-Hoax NYT (10/30/2019) headline: Virginia Girl Recants Story of Boys Cutting Off her Dreadlocks

    Anyone with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot has to believe that the NYT must deem their target audience as a collection of feebly flaccid fopdoodles barely able to achieve synaptic connectivity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.