According to New York Times public editor Liz Spayd, trying to combat false equivalency in the media would be a part of the liberal agenda, and we can’t have that. Instead, what’s needed is “bold and dogged reporting” of facts, not nasty dirty attempts to put facts in context and weigh whether it’s bigger news that one candidate is courting white supremacists than that the other hasn’t had a formal press conference in a while.
Well. About that bold and dogged reporting.
Since Spayd’s treatise on how it would be wrong to suggest that there’s any difference between the candidates, Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia has drawn article after article in the Times. “Scrutiny of Hillary Clinton’s health puts new focus on Tim Kaine.” “An unplanned absence for Hillary Clinton at an inopportune time.” “Candidate gaffes are overrates; health concerns could influence voters more.” “Pneumonia, polyps, and gunshots: A short history of presidential health.” “How to get sick on the U.S. campaign trail: Little sleep, bad food, germs everywhere.”
By contrast, take your pick of Donald Trump’s scandals. The Trump Foundation? Nope. How about Trump University? Not unless you count “Clinton campaign tries to re-focus on Trump University.” Trump’s illegal contribution to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi? Yeah, right.
Fact is, the New York Times is going a step beyond false balance, giving blanket coverage to relatively minor Clinton issues while virtually ignoring major Trump ones. And then public editor Liz Spayd has the nerve to trot out and argue that calls for the newspaper to report semi-fairly are illegitimate and overly ideological.
Please chip in $3 to help elect Hillary Clinton.