Tag Archives: double standards

Time’s Scherer Gratuitously Blogs About ‘Ten People Killed by Guns’ in Light of Supreme Court Ruling

Reacting to colleague Alex Altman’s brief, just-the-facts-styled Swampland blog post “SCOTUS Solidifies Gun Rights,” Time’s Michael Scherer responded a few hours later with the following post : Meanwhile, in Chicago, the source of the lawsuit decided today by the Supreme Court, ten people were killed by guns after 54 people were shot over the weekend. The victims included a baby girl, who suffered a neck graze wound at a midnight barbecue, early Monday morning. To read all the details, the Sun Times has the story . Something tells me Scherer’s observation isn’t that the Chicago gun ban has been a horrendous failure, especially given his attribution of violence in the brief blog post on the guns themselves — “ten people were killed by guns” — not the criminals who used them.

Read the original post:
Time’s Scherer Gratuitously Blogs About ‘Ten People Killed by Guns’ in Light of Supreme Court Ruling

Democrats and Double Standards at the NYT: ‘Respected Voice’ Robert Byrd vs. ‘Foe of Integration’ Strom Thurmond

The New York Times marked the death early Monday morning of veteran Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who served a record 51 years in the U.S. Senate, with an online obituary by former Times reporter Adam Clymer. While acknowledging Byrd’s Klan past and his pork-barrel prodigiousness, Clymer’s lead also emphasized Byrd’s proud fight as the keeper of Congressional prerogatives. The obituary headline was hagiographic: ” Robert Byrd, Respected Voice of the Senate, Dies at 92 .” While Clymer’s opening statement on Byrd wasn’t exactly laudatory, it did not match the paper’s hostile treatment of the passing of two veteran Republican senators accused of racial prejudice: Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina. Clymer’s lead paragraph: Robert C. Byrd, who used his record tenure as a United States senator to fight for the primacy of the legislative branch of government and to build a modern West Virginia with vast amounts of federal money, died at about 3 a.m. Monday, his office said. He was 92. The bulk of Clymer’s obituary for Byrd may have been written some time ago, as is customary. Clymer retired from the Times in 2003, after a career of bashing President Bush and prominent conservatives , while defending old-guard Democrats like Sen. Ted Kennedy. Clymer acknowledged what he called Byrd’s changing perspective, moving from conservative to liberal over the years, and in the 16th paragraph brought up Byrd’s membership in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s and his filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Mr. Byrd’s perspective on the world changed over the years. He filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and supported the Vietnam War only to come to back civil rights measures and criticize the Iraq war. Rating his voting record in 1964, Americans for Democratic Action, the liberal lobbying group, found that his views and the organization’s were aligned only 16 percent of the time. In 2005, he got an A.D.A. rating of 95. Mr. Byrd’s political life could be traced to his early involvement with the Ku Klux Klan, an association that almost thwarted his career and clouded it intermittently for years afterward. …. Mr. Byrd insisted that his klavern had never conducted white-supremacist marches or engaged in racial violence. He said in his autobiography that he had joined the Klan because he shared its anti-Communist creed and wanted to be associated with the leading people in his part of West Virginia. He conceded, however, that he also “reflected the fears and prejudices” of the time. After noting criticism from watchdog groups over Byrd’s reputation as the “king of pork,” Clymer followed up: West Virginians were grateful for the help. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and the state’s junior senator since 1985, said Mr. Byrd had meant “everything, everything” to the state. Mr. Byrd knew, he said, that “before you can make life better, you have to have a road to get in there, and you have to have a sewerage system and all those things, and he has done that for most of the state.” Bob Wise, a Democrat who was West Virginia’s governor from 2001 to 2005, once said that what Mr. Byrd had done for education — “the emphasis on reading and literacy” — mattered even more than roads. And Clymer’s dubious observation that Byrd “was never a particularly partisan Democrat” would surprise many familiar with Byrd’s non-stop excoriation of Bush over the Iraq War. Byrd authored a 2004 book titled “Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency.” Clymer mentions the book but leaves off the provocative subtitle, simply calling it “Losing America.” He was never a particularly partisan Democrat . President Richard M. Nixon briefly considered him for a Supreme Court appointment. Mr. Dole recalled an occasion when Mr. Byrd gave him advice on a difficult parliamentary question; the help enabled Mr. Dole to overcome Mr. Byrd on a particular bill. In contrast is the Times’s treatment of veteran Republican Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, who died on Independence Day 2008. The headline: ” Jesse Helms, Unyielding Beacon of Conservatism, Is Dead at 86 .” Steven Holmes’s obituary for Helms began: Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art, died early Friday. He was 86. Clymer’s Byrd obituary didn’t mention that Byrd, like Helms, voted on a measure to bar the National Endowment for the Arts of funding “obscene” or “indecent” work. Clymer also wrote the obituary for centennial Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond, who died on June 26, 2003. Like Byrd, Thurmond was a former segregationist (he made his mark as the States’ Rights Candidate in 1948 and became a Republican in 1964) who later reconciled with blacks and became proficient in earning pork for his state. The Times’s headline the following day left no room for doubt: ” Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100 ,” although Clymer’s lead sentence didn’t mention race. (Hat tip Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters .)

See the article here:
Democrats and Double Standards at the NYT: ‘Respected Voice’ Robert Byrd vs. ‘Foe of Integration’ Strom Thurmond

VIDEO: Media Routinely Used ‘Conservative’ Label on Bush Nominees to Supreme Court; Obama Picks Always ‘Centrist’

When President Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005, the media did not hesitate to describe both men as “very conservative,” but when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan this year many in the press couldn’t seem to identify any liberal ideology. The Media Research Center has produced a video compilation of examples to further demonstrate the obvious double standard. [Audio available here ] During ABC’s live special coverage of Roberts’s nomination on July 19, 2005, then This Week host and former Democratic operative George Stephanopoulos declared: “This is a very conservative man with a strong paper trail that proves it.” NPR’s Nina Totenberg could hardly contain her urge to label, using the word “conservative” several times during a July 23 appearance on Inside Washington: “John Roberts is a really conservative guy…he’s a conservative Catholic….[President Bush] has given conservatives a hardline conservative.” The same labeling followed Alito’s nomination months later. CBS’s Bob Schieffer opened the October 31 Evening News by proclaiming: “Conservatives wanted a conservative on the Supreme Court, and said the President ought to risk a fight in the Senate to get one. Their wishes have been fulfilled.” Later that evening, on a special 7PM ET hour edition of CNN’s The Situation Room, anchor Wolf Blitzer described: “…there is a new nomination and new controversy. A battle shapes up as the president picks a staunch conservative who could help reshape the U.S. Supreme Court.” Compare those characterizations of Roberts and Alito with how Stephanopoulos introduced Sotomayor to Good Morning America viewers on May 1, 2009: “She’s built up a strong centrist record on the court.” On the May 27 CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric scratched her head when it came to Sotomayor’s political views: “Now pundits usually label judges as either liberal or conservative, but that won’t be easy with Judge Sotomayor.” Meanwhile, Totenberg actually remained consistent, arguing Obama’s nominee was actually on the Right: “…she’s more conservative than some members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia, perhaps.” With Kagan, on CBS’s April 11 Face the Nation, legal analyst Jan Crawford described the broad support the potential nominee would receive: “…she’s got some support among conservatives because she hired a lot of those conservative law professors at Harvard.” On the May 10 Good Morning America, ABC World News anchor Diane Sawyer explained how Kagan “is expected to play a role as somewhat of a conciliator, the bridge across the conservative and liberal wings of the Court.” Like Totenberg with Sotomayor, on the May 11 CBS Early Show co-host Maggie Rodriguez floated the idea that Kagan was conservative: “she may actually shift the Court to the Right, compared with Justice Stevens.”      As evidence of Kagan’s staunch liberalism comes out in her confirmation hearings, one wonders if the media will finally be willing to accurately describe her left-wing views.

The rest is here:
VIDEO: Media Routinely Used ‘Conservative’ Label on Bush Nominees to Supreme Court; Obama Picks Always ‘Centrist’

David Weigel Explains Away Journolist E-mails by Claiming to be a Jerk

Former Washington Post writer David Weigel has attempted to explain away his Journolist e-mails attacking conservatives by claiming he was a trash-talking thoughtless jerk. If you think that self-damnation was bad, at least it was much better than admitting something even closer to the truth which would be that he deviously allowed people to think of him as a conservative. In fact, he is still lamely making that conservative claim in his Big Journalism article but first the jerk confession: …I treated the list like a dive bar, swaggering in and popping off about what was “really” happening out there, and snarking at conservatives. Why did I want these people to like me so much? Why did I assume that I needed to crack wise and rant about people who, usually for no more than five minutes were getting on my nerves? Because I was stupid and arrogant, and needlessly mean… Unfortunately, Weigel proved that he still remains a jerk by continuing to claim that he was somehow conservative: I interned at the libertarian Center for Individual Rights in the summer of 2001. I supported the Iraq War and crashed an anti-war protest on my campus. I voted in Republican primaries in 2002 and 2004. (Since I was in Illinois, I voted in 2004 for Jack Ryan to get the GOP’s nomination for Senate, to oppose Barack Obama. I’m better off than one of those guys.) Weigel still tries to convince us of his one-time conservative credentials despite the fact that in the three presidential elections since 2000 he voted for Nader, Kerry, and Obama. Gee! What a “conservative!” Despite his pretend conservatism, Weigel just can’t seem to understand why people think he has misrepresented himself: Still, this was hubris. It was the hubris of someone who rose — objectively speaking — a bit too fast, and someone who misunderstood a few things about his trade. It was also the hubris of someone who thought the best way to be annoyed about something was to do it publicly. This is the reason I’m surprised at commentary accusing me of misrepresenting myself. Except that liberal Journolist was supposed to be private and Weigel wrote there in the expectation that it would remain so. Dave’s misrepresentation mode continues. 

Read more here:
David Weigel Explains Away Journolist E-mails by Claiming to be a Jerk

Once Again, ‘Many Peaceful’ = ‘Some Violent’ When It Comes to Leftist Protesters in the NY Times

Violent protesters set fire to police cars and shattered store-front windows at the Group of 20 economic summit in Toronto this weekend. How did the New York Times, so skittish about the hypothetical threat of non-existent Tea Party violence from the right, react to actual violence committed by political protesters by the left-wing and anarchist groups? With more snort-worthy apologias for left-wing protesters being overwhelmingly “peaceful” in numerical terms Reporter Randal Archibold made a similar claim in his April 24 story from Phoenix at a protest against Arizona’s anti-immigration law, claiming that “hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza.” Local news in Phoenix reported three people were arrested during the immigration rally, including two seen throwing water bottles at police, and videos showed more lawlessness on display. The same defensive tone is present in Monday’s Business section story from Toronto, with the ludicrous headline ” Police in Toronto Criticized for Treatment of Protesters, Many Peaceful ,” by Ian Austen. Austen’s story is illustrated with a photo from the European Pressphoto Agency showing two policemen arresting a woman, but not photos shown elsewhere of burning cars, like the Associated Press photo by Frank Gunn above. Austen managed to fault the police both for initial passivity and subsequent overreaction: An escalation of aggressive police tactics toward even apparently peaceful protests at the Group of 20 summit meeting led to calls for a review of security activities . After allowing a small group of people to burn police cars and smash windows unimpeded on Saturday afternoon, many of the 20,000 police officers deployed in Toronto changed tactics that evening and during the last day of the gathering. There was a notable increase in both the numbers of police officers who surrounded demonstrations as well as more use of tear gas and rubber or plastic bullets. At the same time, there was a visible drop in the number of demonstrators in the city streets. As a result, the violence by some demonstrators that marred the opening of the Group of 20 meeting did not reappear on Sunday, and more than 600 people were arrested Saturday and Sunday. The Times seemed to miss the obvious connection: More police and more arrests = less crime. It’s one the Times has missed before, most notoriously in this headline from September 28, 1997: ” Crime Keeps On Falling; but Prisons Keep On Filling .” Unlike Archibold’s Arizona coverage, Austen didn’t ignore the violence on display in Toronto, though he did offer the same ludicrous apologia to this group of left-wing protesters that Archibold did to the ones in Arizona, writing that ” the overwhelming majority…were peaceful .” The violence was not exceptional compared with problems at previous international meetings, like the World Trade Organization’s gathering in Seattle in 1999 . Toronto’s shopping district sustained the greatest damage but quickly became something of a tourist attraction. But it was nevertheless extraordinary for Toronto, a city with little history of violent protests. David Miller, the city’s mayor, was among the many who swiftly condemned it. “Does today send signals about Toronto that I wish weren’t sent?” he said on Saturday evening. “Absolutely.” …. William Blair, the city’s police chief, did not respond directly to the widespread criticism over the lack of police response during the period of violence. But at a news conference, he suggested that officers were deliberately held back. The protesters, the overwhelming majority of whom were peaceful , promoted a variety of causes. Many were challenging the legitimacy of the Group of 20 and proposing that governments work through the United Nations. Others championed specific issues, particularly in relation to human rights and the environment.

Link:
Once Again, ‘Many Peaceful’ = ‘Some Violent’ When It Comes to Leftist Protesters in the NY Times

Scarborough Calls on Petraeus and Gates to Fire McChrystal to ‘Keep the President’s Hands Clean’

During Tuesday’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough called for the firing of General Stanley McChrystal. He boldly exclaimed that this discharge should not come from the Commander-in-Chief because “Democrats have to treat generals differently from Republicans.” He goes even further and states, “Were this a Republican, were it George W. Bush, McChrystal would have been fired yesterday,” and “the press would have understood it.” Of course, because during the last administration, the media was noted for giving former President George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt, especially with military decisions. Interestingly enough, a flashback to January 31, 2006, tells a different tale. During MSNBC’s three-hour post State of the Union coverage, Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, denounced President Bush’s message about Iraq. Matthews thought that President Bush “cashiered” General Shinseki’s remarks about wanting more troops and believed the “idea that these guys are free to think out loud, I thought, has been yet to be proven.” Scarborough echoed Matthews and cited that, “For the most part, the Generals and the Admirals, 99 percent of them parrot what the Pentagon and what the President wants.” [Full article available here ] However, it is now 2010, and it is no longer cool to have the courage to stand up or to think out loud against this administration. There is a new president, so Scarborough insisted, because he is a Democrat, “Gates and Petraeus both have to come out, they need to fire McChrystal, and keep the president’s hands clean.” Since, Scarborough served on the Armed Services Committee he should be aware that the President is the top link in the chain of command and therefore is the ultimate authority, but he wants to make it easier for this Democrat to not do his duty as Commander-in-Chief. Apparently, Scarborough’s conservative viewpoint is synonymous with other MSNBC hosts who parrots White House talking points.

Flashback: Media Promoted Military Criticism of President Bush

No general should criticize his or her commander, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal is no exception. But the mainstream media is primarily concerned with the political fallout of McChrystal’s apparent insubordination as revealed by a piece in Rolling Stone . They are not concerned with whether his critiques are accurate, in stark contrast to other military officers’ critiques of war policy under the Bush administration. During Bush’s tenure, active duty generals that spoke out against administration policy were portrayed as courageous whistleblowers. Retired generals were treated as ever-wise sages of military policy. None were scrutinized as McChrystal, pictured right, has been in the hours since Rolling Stone released its article. The most prominent active duty general to earn the media’s affection was Gen. Eric Shinseki, current Secretary of Veterans Affairs (to the media’s delight ). He insisted in 2003 that, contrary to Defense Department policy, the United States would need to send “hundreds of thousands” of troops to Iraq during the initial invasion. The media ate it up. “Top generals, including Eric Shinseki,” wrote the Boston Globe in 2004, “fault Pentagon leadership for not heeding their advice to deploy more ground forces before the invasion or to prepare adequately for the aftermath.” After Shinseki’s repudiation of official military policy prompted rebukes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the New York Times dubbed those rebukes “unusual” and went on to bemoan the fact that Shinseki “has not had more influence on the war planning and the allocation of forces,” in the words of another Army general. The Times also devoted a piece to active duty personnel’s criticisms of Rumsfeld and the Iraqi war effort generally. The article read, Long-simmering tensions between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on the Iraqi battlefield that the Pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they want to fight it… One colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region. “He wanted to fight this war on the cheap,” the colonel said. “He got what he wanted.”… Underlying the strains between Mr. Rumsfeld and the Army, which began at the beginning of Mr. Rumsfeld’s tenure, are questions that challenge not only the Rumsfeld design for this war but also his broader approach to transforming the military. Instead of going on to examine the apparent problems with a military chain of command in which policymakers are criticized, the Times, the Globe, and many other media outlets used critiques from officers both named and anonymous to question the effectiveness and wisdom of American military policy. McChrystal’s statements could spur some discussion on whether President Obama is really up to the task in Afghanistan–the general is certainly is not the first to suggest it. Yet the media focus has been almost entirely trained on the general himself and on the supposed danger of a dysfunctional chain of command and a general who questions the president’s orders. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter today explained, in the words of his headline, ” Why Military Code Demands McChrystal’s Resignation .” “The most important issue at hand in the furor over Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s acerbic comments in Rolling Stone,” wrote Alter, “is the central one in a democracy: civilian control over the military.” Got it? The question is not whether McChrystal’s critiques of the administration could shine some light on an ineffective war effort or misguided military policies. No, unlike military criticism of Bush war policy, McChrystal’s comments spur discussion of the intricacies of a civilian-controlled military, not the specific policies employed by the civilian government and their consequences on the battlefield. Time’s Joe Klein applauded Mike Huckabee in 2007 for saying he “would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice.” But now Klein is far more concerned with the ” military tradition and practice ” violated by generals who speak out against their commanders than he is with the ongoing war effort. McChrystal was of course out of line. But media liberals who are only distraught at potential insubordination when the subordinate does not aid their political goals in speaking out are commentators whose opinions must be taken with a few grains of salt.

See the original post here:
Flashback: Media Promoted Military Criticism of President Bush

Bachmann Responds to ‘F— Michele Bachmann’ Concert Fliers: ‘We Don’t See an Outrage Coming from the Media’

It is way beyond comprehension – the dislike, hatred for Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., a relative backbencher in terms of congressional clout , but a strong outspoken conservative leader. Fliers ( posted below fold ) have been surfacing around Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn. advertising a “F— Michele Bachmann 2010” tape party featuring the hip-hop artist G-Biz . And on Sean Hannity’s June 17 radio program, the Minnesota congresswoman responded to it and likened it to other shots taken at her. “It was just brought to my attention yesterday,” she said. “This is part of a pattern. I know you reported on this before – the Playboy article. They have highlighted various conservative women and talked about very lewd, derogatory, hateful violent things that they wanted to do toward those women. I was one of those women and this is a concert series, as you said, where they’re using degrading terminology. Also in Minneapolis, there’s a comic book series that was written showing me in a similar light.” Flier Posted Below Fold

MSNBC’s Brewer Annoyed at Barton’s ‘Shakedown’ Reference, But Colleague Ed Schultz Used It With Pride

In a satellite interview with Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) held shortly before 1 p.m. EDT today, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer criticized Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) for denouncing the president pushing BP to agree to a $20-billion escrow account for oil spill damages as a “shakedown”: So, there’s Joe Barton calling the $20 billion in escrow a shakedown, and as you point out, there are people in your district who have lost their livelihoods! They wonder how they can feed their families! But yesterday, Brewer’s MSNBC colleague Ed Schultz used similar language to voice his giddy approval of President Obama’s maneuvering : President Obama! You are the dude! The president takes the heads of BP behind closed doors, shakes them down for $20 billion, and gets an apology.  President Obama went behind closed doors today with Tony Hayward and the other suits from BP and informed them it’s time to pay.  If you go by today’s results, you’d have to say the President of the United States hit it out of the park. In his own way the President of the United States took on a multinational [corporation] shook ’em down for $20 billion for the American people. President Obama got more out of BP than the Congress ever has. The day before that, just two hours before President Obama’s Oval Office address, Schultz told viewers he hoped the president would sound “like a dictator” and would rhetorically speaking, press his “boot on the neck of BP tonight.”

See the original post here:
MSNBC’s Brewer Annoyed at Barton’s ‘Shakedown’ Reference, But Colleague Ed Schultz Used It With Pride

On Same Day, NYT Downplays Etheridge Incident, Runs Long Report on 3 Year-Old Alleged Meg Whitman Shove

If the folks at the New York Times had any sense of shame, they would feel foolish today. A review of the Times’s June 15 print edition index and review of the related articles indicates that the paper’s editors: Gave reporter Jeff Zeleny about 330 words on Page A21 to recycle a Caucus Blog post softly covering the video-recorded arguable assault North Carolina Congressman Bob Etheridge committed against a questioner on a public street ” last week ,” and which came to public light early Monday morning. The vague print edition headline (per the index ): “Congressman Apologizes After Tussle.” Devoted almost 1,000 words on Page A15 to a story about a three year-old alleged shoving incident involving California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman that “no one else appears to have witnessed.” Yet the headline gives the impression that the facts are not in dispute: “Settlement Was Paid in Whitman Shoving Incident.” What explains the disparate treatment? I suppose one could argue that the actions of a sitting congressman aren’t as important as those of someone who wants to be (but isn’t yet) chief executive of the nation’s most populous state. Nice try, but I’m not sold. Etheridge is a Democrat. It is still an open question as to whether the incident with which he was involved will become a criminal matter. There’s certainly no lack of evidence. All of this makes it a still-breaking and still-developing story worthy of far more attention than the Times gave it. Whitman is a Republican. In addition to noting that the incident involved has no identified witnesses, The Times report specifically tells us that the matter was settled through mediation, and that “the authorities were not involved.” Former eBay CEO Whitman has no criminal exposure. The report is a gratuitous, politically-motivated dredge-up of a long-forgotten matter. The Times’s Brad Stone and likely other reporters clearly put many hours of work into the Whitman report. In the process, he or they encouraged and ultimately convinced eBay employees to breach ethics and to violate confidentiality agreements. The incident’s alleged victim still works at eBay and has clearly moved on: In June 2007, an eBay employee claimed that Ms. Whitman became angry and forcefully pushed her in an executive conference room at eBay’s headquarters, according to multiple former eBay employees with knowledge of the incident. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter was delicate and was deemed to be strictly confidential. The employee, Young Mi Kim, was preparing Ms. Whitman for a news media interview that day. Ms. Kim, who was not injured in the incident, hired a lawyer and threatened a lawsuit, but the dispute was resolved under the supervision of a private mediator. Two of the former employees said the company paid a six-figure financial settlement to Ms. Kim, which one of them characterized as “around $200,000.” An agreement to keep the matter confidential was also part of the settlement, and the authorities were not involved. Ms. Whitman was counseled in the matter, the former eBay employees said, by the company’s human resources lawyers and by Henry Gomez, then president of the Skype unit at eBay and now a senior adviser to Ms. Whitman’s campaign. Ms. Kim still works at eBay and is now a senior manager for corporate and executive communications. … When reached by telephone on Monday, Ms. Kim said the issue was a “private matter” and declined to comment. Later, in an e-mail message, Ms. Kim said she and Ms. Whitman had overcome their differences. “Yes, we had an unfortunate incident, but we resolved it in a way that speaks well for her and for eBay,” Ms. Kim said. “And ultimately, I came back to the company, which is not something I had to do.” The Whitman campaign issued a statement signed by Ms. Whitman that described Ms. Kim as a “respected colleague and valuable asset to the company.” The Etheridge incident could yet result in criminal charges, and could affect the Congressman’s ability to continue in office. Absent criminal charges, it could at least subject him to some form of discipline from House leadership (well, let’s say it should, but given who’s in charge, whether anything negative will occur is highly doubtful). By contrast, exactly how is the years-old alleged Whitman incident relevant to the California governor’s race? The wildly different treatment of the two incidents — one drop-dead obvious, the other a “she said, she said” matter that has long since been resolved — reveals the Times’s primary motivation. It isn’t “journalism”; instead, it’s to discredit Republicans while protecting Democrats. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the rest here:
On Same Day, NYT Downplays Etheridge Incident, Runs Long Report on 3 Year-Old Alleged Meg Whitman Shove