Media bias laid bare

The mainstream media has been going through a rough stretch lately. From the IRS, to Gosnell, to Benghazi, their resolve to downplay any story damaging to the President or opposed to their personal political ideology is being tested. In the process, the public’s already waning trust in their work has been even further damaged.

The New York Times, for instance, did not feel it was front page news that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups for harassment. As a matter of fact, the paper did not feel like the story was even worthy of the paper’s first ten pages. They buried it on page A-11.

Perhaps even more revealing, the Times printed an editorial in March of last year titled “The I.R.S. Does Its Job” in which they suggest it was actually a good thing that Tea Party groups were feeling the heat.

“Taxpayers should be encouraged by complaints from Tea Party chapters applying for nonprofit tax status at being asked by the Internal Revenue Service to prove they are ‘social welfare’ organizations and not the political activists they so obviously are,” the Times said.

Dave Weigel, a libertarian-leaning journalist and admitted Obama voter with a well-documented history of disdain for conservative social issues, explained why the Gosnell story was not getting any attention in the mainstream media.

“Let’s just state the obvious: National political reporters are, by and large, socially liberal. We are more likely to know a gay couple than to know someone who owns an “assault weapon.” We are, generally, pro-choice…. There is a bubble. Horror stories of abortionists are less likely to permeate that bubble than, say, a story about a right-wing pundit attacking an abortionist who then claims to have gotten death threats. … So the question, raised by pro-lifers, is this: Explain to us why Gosnell isn’t a national story. Somebody else can try. I can’t explain it. … [But] I do know that a reporter in the bubble is less likely to be compelled by the news of an arrested abortionist.”

But it’s the Benghazi story that is probably the most damning for members of the media. It exposes not only their inability to separate their personal politics from their job, but also the incestuous web of relationships that has distorted the once adversarial relationship between members of the press and people in power.

It has now come to light that CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood both have siblings working for Obama in positions that are directly related to what happened in Benghazi. In addition to that, CNN deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to one of Hillary Clinton’s deputies.

Rhodes’ (CBS) brother Ben, is Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication. Sherwood’s (ABC) sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is a Special Assistant to Barack Obama. And Moseley’s (CNN) husband, Tom Nides, is the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

ABC News reported over the weekend that Rhodes’ (CBS) brother, Ben, was a key player in forming the Administration’s Benghazi talking points which are now at the very center of the alleged coverup.

The plot thickens.

And when you think about it, the revolving door between the media and positions of power has been spinning more and more in recent years.

David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs — both key players in Obama world — are now at MSNBC. Karl Rove and Dana Perino — both top aides in the Bush White House — are now at Fox News. President Obama’s current Press Secretary Jay Carney was once Time Magazine’s Washington Bureau Chief. Former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos is now at ABC. The list could go on and on.

For an easy-to-understand anecdote on how the combination of political ideology and personal relationships can influence media outlets’ coverage of an issue, look no further than how the cable news outlets covered the Benghazi hearings.

Fox News covered it live for 1 hour and 48 minutes. CNN covered it live for 17 minutes. MSNBC covered it live for exactly zero minutes.

Someone at the New York Times made the choice to bury the IRS story. Someone at MSNBC made the choice not to cover the Benghazi hearings. Someone at almost every major media outlet in the country made the choice not to cover the Gosnell mass murder story.

Were those decisions made because of personal politics, or personal relationships? At this point it’s pretty much impossible to tell.

[Stay tuned for part two of this story focusing specifically on the Alabama media.]

What else is going on?
1. Roby Makes Her Move
2. IRS Admits to Targeting Conservative Groups
3. Barry Mask: From Aubie, to Legislator, to CEO
4. Teachers Union Leader Removed from TRS Board
5. Bonner defends Alabama-built Littoral Combat Ship in appropriations hearing