[Note: To read the full version of each of the following two columns on bad media ethics, click on the link embedded in each headline.]
New York Times shows execrable double standard, covers up for Biden (May 13): Sometimes the left-wing media makes it amazingly easy to criticize their outlandish double standards.
Consider, naturally, the “news” pages of the New York Times.
Consider that in January, the Times oh-so-seriously reported “Ethics Questions Over A Spouse’s Business Ties.” The report was about how Chief Justice John Roberts’ wife, Jane, has “been paid millions of dollars in commissions for placing lawyers at firms — some of which have business before the Supreme Court.”
Okay, fine: Maybe there are legitimate questions at stake. The story in itself isn’t remarkable….
By contrast, consider Item how the same New York Times this week handled a report from a House committee detailing how numerous members of the Biden family received $10 million in payments from foreign interests, all funneled through more than 20 different companies, some of them appearing to be set up as shell corporations of the sort often used to make it harder to trace financial transactions….
Associated Press goes way overboard in pro-transgender, anti-parent bias (May 14):
The Associated Press has abandoned all pretense of objectivity in its reporting on transgenderism.
My colleague Kaylee McGhee White on May 12, criticized the AP in the course of a superb analysis of the underlying issue of parental rights, but my focus is firmly and only on the AP’s biased reporting.
The AP story in question was headlined, quite astonishingly, “Trans minors protected from parents under Washington law.” As if parents are naturally aggressors against their children.
The journalistic sins did not stop with the headline, however. Here’s the first paragraph: “Minors seeking gender-affirming care in Washington will be protected from the intervention of estranged parents under a measure Gov. Jay Inslee signed into law Tuesday.”
Right there, the AP chooses sides, rather than adopting neutral phrasing. To opponents, the treatments afforded to those seeking to be deemed a gender opposite their biology and anatomy are not gender-affirming but gender-disturbing. And the treatments of any sort are not considered “care” but “abuse.”
A neutral phraseology, which is what the AP is supposed to provide, would read: “Minors seeking gender-transitioning support will be able to stay in shelters without parents being quickly informed…”…
