The journalistic sin of smugness

Will Rahn, the Washington editor of the Daily Beast, no less (known both for its liberalism and its snarkiness), has written a mea culpa on journalists’ failure to understand the Trump phenomenon, a confession remarkable for its self-knowledge and its moral diagnosis. [Read more…]

CNN caught feeding debate questions to Clinton

Donna Brazile is a Democratic operative who landed a gig as a commentator at CNN.  The Wikileak trove of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s e-mails includes Brazile giving him a question that would be asked in the CNN-hosted Town Hall debate.

Earlier Wikileaks seemed to indicate that she was leaking questions in earlier debates, but Brazile and CNN both strongly denied it.  But there is no question about what this e-mail says.

So CNN and Brazile have severed ties. [Read more…]

Media election coverage

After the Republican convention, the media was giving Trump lots of unfavorable coverage.  But once Hillary Clinton racked up a seemingly safe lead in the polls, reporters started giving her a hard time.  To the point that after Matt Lauer’s interview of the two candidates, Democrats complained about media bias!  (Welcome to the Republicans’ world!)  Now that Trump has caught up in the polls, though, journalists are attacking him again.

Prediction:  Watch for stories now about Clinton’s good qualities.

CNBC moderators lost the debate

Pretty much everybody agrees with the conclusions on our liveblog that the CNBC moderators of the Republican debate did an embarrassingly horrible job.  Even usually liberal observers–such as Time, NPR, and Politico–are saying so.  For a colorful account, see the British take in the London Daily Mail.

It wasn’t just that the questions were hard, or even biased.  Everyone expects that.  It’s that the questions were trivial (casting aspersions on Rubio for cashing in a $67,000 IRA?  Asking Jeb Bush his position on taxing fantasy football?), insulting (asking Trump if he is a “comic book” candidate?), and not fact-checked (one moderator cited information that he himself had had to retract earlier!).  And yet, the Republican candidates, individually and as a whole, scored big against them, with both indignation and wit.

After the jump, a good summary from the usually liberal Daily Beast, with this deck:  “From silly and inaccurate questions to just plain awkward interruptions, Team CNBC stumbled in Boulder—and was absolutely clobbered by the Republican presidential field for it.” [Read more…]

“There are not two sides.”

As the nation’s media openly joined in the celebrations of the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage, some are saying, as we blogged about, that they will not cover opposition to the issue anymore.  Ben Smith, editor-in-chief of Buzzfeed, said this:

“We firmly believe that for a number of issues, including civil rights, women’s rights, anti-racism, and LGBT equality, there are not two sides.”

You have GOT to read Federalist editor Mollie Hemingway’s evisceration of this attitude, linked after the jump. [Read more…]

Newspaper won’t allow opinions against gay marriage

Where we are already, after the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling:  A Harrisburg, PA, newspaper has announced that since  the gay marriage issue is now “settled,” it will not print op-ed pieces or letters to the editor that oppose gay marriage or say that homosexual acts are immoral or unnatural.  We won’t print racist, sexist, or anti-semitic letters, the editor explained.  “To that we add homophobic ones.” [Read more…]