The traditional media has been on a big both-sides-do-it kick lately, desperate to create equivalence between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump no matter what. But Maggie Haberman wins the prize for a one-two, article-tweet punch that will be hard to equal. (Which is not to say lots of reporters won't try.) The article’s lede says it all:
Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton will enter the week before Labor Day trading barbs over racism, transparency and scandals.
Heaven help us, the Washington Post editorial board answered this one in advance:
WE COULD write that both presidential candidates talked about race last Thursday, and we wouldn’t be wrong — but it wouldn’t really be an accurate portrayal, either. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton delivered a thoughtful and well-documented indictment of her opponent’s embrace of racist themes and his legitimization of previously fringe racist groups. Republican nominee Donald Trump, like a middle-schooler crying “I know what you are, but what am I,” retorted, without evidence or argumentation, that Ms. Clinton is a “bigot.”
When the Washington Post is pre-butting your hot takes, you know you’re a hack. But Haberman followed that article up with a tweet of such blinding, willful stupidity it defies belief.
Hillary Clinton has to fight this kind of nonsense every day. Can you chip in $1 to help her?
In the wake of Anthony Weiner’s latest sexting fail, Haberman offered up this sizzler:
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. Does this seasoned political reporter expect us to ignore the difference between a campaign “CEO” like Bannon and the husband of a top campaign aide? Hillary Clinton’s campaign does not employ Anthony Weiner. Weiner is not setting campaign message or strategy. Bannon, by contrast, is at the top of Donald Trump’s campaign. I don’t even know how to dumb it down enough to get to the level of this tweet.
There’s “both sides do it” when they don’t do it. That’s a standard, if obnoxious, political reporter move. Then there’s “both sides” when on the one hand you’re talking about the campaign “CEO” and on the other hand you’re talking about the husband of the campaign vice chair. That’s a next-level dishonest political reporter move.