Bias? What bias?

Want to talk about 'fake news?' Let's talk about The Daily Show, CNN, NBC, and The Politico.

As Dan wrote earlier, “fake news” is the left’s newest boogeyman. The pretense is that it’s a battle cry against phony news sites that post absolute falsehoods. In reality, “fake news” is a catch-all term that can be applied to any news or opinion site that doesn’t toe the Democrat line. If they don’t like what you publish, you’re “fake news.” If you’re participating in the anti-Trump histrionics, you’re probably good to go. First of all, aren’t these the very same people who spent the last eight years telling us that “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” did better news than actual news outlets? Why yes, they are. Remember when MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow admitted that the Daily Show did better news than MSNBC?

There has, literally, been no more famous source of “fake news” than Jon Stewart There has, literally, been no more famous source of “fake news” than Jon Stewart in his heyday. He’s admitted as much, and often referred to his show as “the fake news.” Yet, Democrats never got the message. After a while, even Stewart bought into his own mythology. The Daily show was, at its best, funny and opinionated. At its worst it was a smug, self-righteous exercise in which the host mugged his way through a series of twisted facts and false equivocation. Yet, Rachel Maddow, always the smartest liberal in the room, applauds its credibility and research? Then we have the Politico - a site where the senior political correspondent, Glenn Thrush, admitted he was a hack for Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign, and admitted allowing her staff to edit and sign off on his work. We know this, because his correspondence turned up in the WikiLeaks exposure of John Podesta’s emails: Here’s a tip. If a political website is clearing its “news” with the campaign they’re covering, that’s the very definition of “fake news.” It’s propaganda. Nothing more. The sad thing is, while Thrush is probably one of the most glaring examples, we see collusion all over the place. Heck, one network threw a wild on-air party when Hillary was nominated. “This is CNN.” I could spend years chronicling their bias. We’ve all seen it, and we all - without question - know it exists. This is a network that had the gall to broadcast footage of its reporters and anchors singing, drinking, partying, and dancing while celebrating the nomination of Hillary Clinton?

Reince Priebus the Muslim registry with Chuck Todd and Meet the Press Look at Wolf go! Look how excited they all are! No wonder they were so weepy when Hillary’s candidacy went down in flames, all their happiness, hopes, and dreams were riding on her victory. Fancy an example that’s even more recent? Fine. Set the wayback machine for yesterday. Incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was interviewed by Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press.” The host pressed Priebus on the concept of a “Muslim Registry.” Here’s the clip: Note that Priebus very clearly says “Look, I’m not going to rule out anything. But we are not going to have a registry based on religion.” Priebus is “not going to rule anything out” because, frankly, it’s not his job to do so. However, he immediately dispels the idea of a Muslim registry while Chuck Todd sighs and tries to interrupt. But guess what headline NBC went with?

If you think the fight ended on election day, think again. The real fight is just beginning Tell me, exactly, how “we are not going to have a registry based on religion” fails to contradict that headline. OK, one more. The New York Times has taken the unprecedented step of issuing an apology to its readers for its handling of the 2016 election. It was so in the tank for Hillary that it became even more of a left-wing echo chamber than it already was. Its political leanings are nothing new, but it looks like they may have finally done real damage to the once great paper, after quarterly profits took a staggering hit. The Times likes you to think it’s “rededicated” itself and will be stamping out the bias. But, as we pointed out the other day, that’s not really what its letter said. As they put it, the paper will “rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor.” That’s great, but they also claim that both candidates were treated fairly in 2016. So, they’re doubling down on what they’re already doing - not changing course. This is going to be a huge problem for the next four to eight years. Media outlets won’t learn the lesson of 2016. They’re not going to start playing fair. What they’re going to do is ramp up the bias while simultaneously accelerating their attempts to sell themselves as honest and attack everyone who would dare disagree. If you think the fight ended on election day, think again. The real fight is just beginning.



Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.

{/exp:ce_cache:it}