#BelieveAllWomen, so long as they're accusing a Republican
The New York Times proves their "news" operation is verifiably a Dem organ
Today is a day of salvation. No we’re not talking about Easter, we’re talking about NYT saving us from ever questioning them again.
We’re constantly scolded by the GMA that we are to believe every word printed in the “news” sections of NYT, WaPo, etc. That our claims of bias are really only against the editorial pages that host explicitly opinionated content. That the “news” sections are verifiable objective fact. Let’s entertain that idea.
Inherent in the word ‘objective’ is the notion that their news coverage of any given event is covered the same way regardless of who is on the receiving end. So ideally if a woman accuses a male political figure of sexual assault, the volume of coverage and language used will be exactly the same solely based on the facts of the accusations, not the political stripes of the accused.
In today’s “news” section of NYT they finally reported on Tara Reade, the former staff assistant of Joe Biden, who has accused him of forcibly fingering her against her wishes. It took them 3+ weeks to mention this allegation, the first Mainstream outlet to do so. She has now filed a criminal complaint in DC against Biden so perhaps that’s what tipped the scales.
Blasey Ford vs Reade Volume
Total stories in NYT about Blasey Ford: 556
Total stories in NYT about Reade: 1
Total stories in NYT about Blasey Ford in first 3 days of accusation: 25
Total stories in NYT about Blasey Ford in first 3 days of accusation: 0
Blasey Ford vs Reade Language (of “news” coverage, not opinion section)
First story about Blasey Ford (day of):
First story about Reade (3+ weeks later):
Okay let’s dig in.
Kav headline is neutral in terms of guilt but puts the onus on him to prove innocence (opposite of our constitutional right to innocent until proven guilty) by saying his nom is in turmoil. Why is it in turmoil? Oh yes, because your implying that there is merit to the accusation and that it should be a factor in his nomination.
The subheading is where the real damage is done. They print a brutal quote from Ford that will trigger an emotional response from readers. Instead of doing their jobs and informing readers that there was not a shred of evidence (more later), they run an emotionally charged quote.
Now look at the picture. He looks angry! Kind of like a guy who would assault a woman. Guess they just picked that picture at random huh.
Headline for Biden is much more accommodating. “Examining” the allegations is as neutral as it gets. Why didn’t they print “throws his bid for the Presidency into turmoil”? Well, they would tell you “because no one is talking about it!”. Who is “no one”? If only you could see me grinning…they are the ones setting the agenda of turmoil.
The subheading is about as dry as a summer day in Sedona. “Says she told others about it”. Here’s another bit of gold. THE OTHER PEOPLE CORROBORATE THIS. So why would they not print “people she told at the time corroborate her story”? Then comes the payoff pitch: “and former Senate office staff members do not recall such an incident.”. NEITHER DID BLASEY FORD’S PARENTS, BEST FRIEND, OR ANY OF THE 7 BILLION PEOPLE ON PLANET EARTH”.
Starting to get the picture here?
From the Kav article:
But don’t worry - NYT deleted and changed that part! Too harsh for Joe.
Blasey Ford vs Reade Language (of “news” coverage, not opinion section) — The Hearing
This post is getting too long as is but let’s example two stories from the “news” division (not opinion) of the New York Times during the hearing.
Blasey Ford is cast as the hero:
Kav & co are cast as the villains:
“With Caffeine and Determination” - how brave! We have our protagonist.
Kavanaugh = Angry white male! Don’t forget readers - the facts, due process, innocence and guilt are of no relevance here. This is the privileged white conservative male who is just angry he hasn’t gotten away with a fast one. Submit and soil your name against accusations you deny with zero evidence!
Just look at how angry Graham looks! They must be guilty!
What’s so bad about all this? Is it that this is a “news” outlet claiming to be objective that’s so clearly not so? That they don’t actually believe all women? It’s that the disparity in evidence is staggering, yet the coverage couldn’t be more uncorrelated.
Ford: There is no evidence they even met. Her best friend denies her story. Her parents didn’t support her. She doesn’t know the location. She doesn’t know the date. She doesn’t know how she got home. She lied or changed her story multiple times. Not a single person, not a single piece of evidence.
Reade: She was a staff assistant for Biden. She told her late mother, brother, and friend. The brother remembers the story with details, he remembers her mother being furious. Her friend, Katie Halper, who is a member of the media herself, has publicly said she recalls Reade telling her at the time. Furthermore, Reade is a Democrat who openly disdains Trump, a relevant fact to dissuade political conspiracy theories.
Look, we’re not saying Biden is guilty. That’s not the point here. These are the same people who told you Blasey Ford was credible and that we need to believe all women. It’s just so beyond parody at this point. No we’re not going to take you seriously.
The point here is to expose the NYT for what it is. An explicitly partisan organ for the Democratic establishment, not the paper of record. But guess what, THAT’S FINE. No one cares! We just want you to be honest about it.
Smash that subscribe button!