The funniest part of the media bias is when it starts to affect the other members of the media. The social hand-wringers worry about undue influence on the general public, but when journalists are duped by the practice no one seems so concerned.
It is so very revealing that when Fox News has so much as a typo in a chyron, Brian Stelter and his stunted spuds of minions react with instantaneous scorn and derision.
Fox banner, with Yovanovitch's name misspelled, says "YOVANOVICH ADMITS PRESIDENT DIDN'T COMMIT CRIME"
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) November 16, 2019
However, when major media outlets or news syndicates commit a significant breach of protocol and commit journalistic malpractice there is no such commensurate outrage. For a guy who is the self-anointed guard-Corgi of journalistic ethics, you would expect a bit more diligence.
Take the latest example: Reuters had a recent story about immigration, in regards to the number of children incarcerated in holding facilities worldwide. A new study was released by the United Nations covering the amount of kids held in detention, entitled “Children Deprived of Liberty”.
Reuters put out a syndicated piece on the UN announcement, made on Monday. The UN spokesperson gave some grave statistics, and of course invoked the name of Donald Trump, and his policies. Then after the news cycle dies down, there is this notable alteration to the story.
I deleted a tweet from yesterday that linked out to a Reuters story citing a UN report saying the US has more than 100K kids in immigration-related custody.
Reuters has withdrawn that story and said those numbers were from 2015. https://t.co/W1IIYYc60u
— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) November 19, 2019
Obviously Reuters elected to just run the UN press releases, rather than reading the actual report, which gave the dates. But come on now, who needs to actually read a report that is so scathing of President Trump?!
So yes, once again, the media dumps out a story on the horrific plight of immigrant children detainees, only to have it come back the details concern the actions of the Obama administration. What needs to be noted here is not the inaccuracies in the story — those have been cataloged and will continue to be.
What is telling is the reaction to this revised information. Reuters did not make a correction, nor is there a revised story going out. It issues a single sentence of corrective information: “The United Nations issued a statement on Nov. 19 saying the number was not current but was for the year 2015.”
That is the extent of the content now to be offered on the story. The news feeder is completely taking down the piece. “No replacement story will be issued.” In other words, the blatantly inaccurate smear on the Trump administration is completely memory-holed.
Note Jennifer Bendery — a VP of the Washington Press Club — taking the same action. No curiosity, no further reporting, no explanation detailing the data. It is simply retract, and wash your hands of the mess.
How could your biased refusal to cover a story that'd harm the reputation of the previous president be more shameful? "Senior politics reporter for HuffPost. Veep of Washington Press Club Foundation." Oh
— Anthony Bialy (@AnthonyBialy) November 20, 2019
It was just "too good to check," wasn't it? You call yourself a journalist? You're just a worthless hack.
— Boris_Badenoff (@Boris_Badenoff) November 20, 2019
You deleted a story because it made Obama look bad?
— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) November 20, 2019
Turns out Jennifer actually opposes the very practice — that she was a partner in executing.
— Uncle Ronnie (@UncleRonnie2020) November 20, 2019
When were the numbers made public, what was the earliest date you could have tweeted about it? Were you looking into child detention numbers in the US before this?
— Codified Likeness Utility (@parkerrm39) November 20, 2019
We will just assume those questions are rhetorical — largely because we all know she will never answer those.
Still seems like it would be newsworthy. Or will it be shelved now because Trump wasn’t President in 2015?
— World’sGreatestGrandma (@chonmage) November 19, 2019
A) That second thing, that’s what will happen. Or has happened, as it were.
Interesting. So, actual news prior to 2016 needs to be sanitized? Why would that be?
— Garrick, the Ard-Rí na hÉireann (Probationary) (@Boydesian) November 20, 2019
To fully understand though, Jennifer was REALLY concerned over the non-issue that was Obama’s tan suit. That was a story worthy of her journalistic skills.
— Ryan B. Leslie (@RyanBLeslie) November 20, 2019
Kids in cages?? How does that possibly compare to a possible sartorial scandal? You people need to focus on what is important.
