The news that Donald Trump has revoked the Washington Post's press credentials to his campaign has predictably aroused howls of protest on the left (and from the Post itself, of course).
What I find curious is that, while the Post boasts it has 20 reporters assigned to investigate Trump and is planning to publish a book about him later this year, it has no comparable journalistic task force (or plans for a book) concerning his Democratic rival for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton.
WND asked the Washington Post: “Exactly how large is the team your paper has tasked with thoroughly investigating Hillary Clinton’s background and associations? Are there at least 20 people tasked specifically with digging through her past and finding details in ‘every phase’ of her life?”
Washington Post Vice President of Communications and Events Kristine Coratti told WND that Woodward was referring to a large team of two-dozen reporters and researchers working on “a special book project” examining Trump’s life.
Why a book on Trump and not Hillary and her 22 biggest scandals?
“[W]e have years and years of reporting on Hillary Clinton to draw from, including her last presidential campaign, her time as secretary of state, and her position as U.S. senator,” Coratti explained. “Because Trump’s involvement in political life is far more limited, the Post newsroom decided to embark on a book as a special project. In order to complete the book in a timely fashion, reporters from throughout the newsroom have been assigned to work for a brief period on particular aspects of his life and career.”
Coratti claims the Post has the “same number of people” on staff investigating Trump and Clinton for its news coverage. She said the Post is planning a series on “the life and career of Hillary Clinton,” which “launches in just a few weeks.” Coratti wouldn’t provide any further details about the upcoming series.
So WND asked if she could point to any investigative stories on Hillary’s past that the Post team has published in the last month.
That’s when Coratti stopped responding to WND’s requests for comment.
There's more at the link.
I'm not one of Mr. Trump's supporters, but the media bias concerning him is becoming so blatant that I can't believe most voters are blind to it. It's like a mass feeding frenzy, with journalists becoming more and more hysterical on the matter. Surely they can't expect us to miss it? And surely they can't expect us to notice how they're ignoring Hillary Clinton's background? As editorial cartoonist A. F. Branco sagely noted, 'The hills are alive with the sound of scandals'.
Media bias? What media bias?