Media bias? What media bias?

This is one of the more blatant examples.

Jay Caruso noted that Senator Claire McCaskill had claimed early today never to have met with a Russian ambassador.

. . .

Then undeniable documentary and photographic evidence emerged that she had.

I bet she wishes she could just airbrush that initial tweet from history — like it never happened.

Kinda like the New York Times did today with her claim.

They reported it — and then, when they figured out it was wrong, they simply vanished it. Whoosh. Presto-change-o! It was never there. Did you hear me? It was never there.

. . .

If the New York Times were interested in simply reporting newsworthy material, they would have left in McCaskill’s claim, and reported that she was wrong.

But, you see, they’re not interested in simply reporting newsworthy material. They have an agenda. This didn’t fit their agenda. So they disappeared it. Without a trace. Without a hint that it had ever been there.

Except, that is, at (and on the Twitter timeline of the Federalist’s Sean Davis, who first caught this).

If you want to understand why Americans are furious at the news media, this is Exhibit A. The newspaper of record deliberately covered up a newsworthy story that we can prove they knew about, just because it was inconvenient for the leftist, anti-Trump agenda they are pushing.

You want to know why we don’t trust you, media? This is why. Right here. This is why.

There’s more at the link.

I think that makes the third Democratic Party senator in the last 72 hours who, it’s been revealed, had met with Russian ambassadors and/or political leaders (including Vladimir the Election-Stealer himself), and gotten all cozy with them . . . the same conduct of which they’re alleging Attorney-General Sessions is guilty, and for which they’re condemning him, and over which they’re demanding his resignation.

I wonder if the New York Times remembers how to spell ‘Hypocrisy’?



  1. I saw someone say today that it didn't matter what other senators did, only what Sessions did – they claimed it was because he was AG and they weren't, but that stinks – if it is important enough to make a big issue of, it is important enough to make a big issue of EVERYONE who did it, not selectively pick one as an attempt to hurt his boss.

  2. The conduct Sessions is being accused of is LYING under OATH about meeting with the Russian Ambassador. The guy is an ambassador – it makes sense for politicians to meet with him. When Sessions had to change his story he tried to claim that it was a legitimate meeting as part of his senatorial duties.

    The issue is not 'it is bad to ever talk to a Russian diplomat' but 'it is bad to have secret going ons with a Russian diplomat in return for electoral favors'.

  3. @Anonymous at 12:53 AM: No, that's not the issue. There is no evidence whatsoever that then-Senator Sessions "had secret goings on with a Russian diplomat in return for electoral favors". As I've stated elsewhere, more than once, no-one has produced a single shred of evidence to support that claim.

    Senator Sessions, like many other Senators from both parties, met with diplomats from many countries in the course of his official duties. It seems the Democratic Party and its media allies are determined to highlight his meetings of that nature, but deny, downplay or ignore their own Senators' ditto. They can't have it both ways. If he was wrong to do that, they were wrong to do that. If they weren't wrong to do that, then he wasn't wrong to do that.

    You can't have it both ways. One standard for all.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *