For years, Americans breathlessly accused Politico of being anti-conservative and lacking in any sort of journalistic integrity. Founded by two former writers at the ultra-liberal Washington Post back in 2007, shortly before Obama took office, they quickly developed a reputation for distorting facts, selective reporting, and disparaging conservatives. In 2011, Hugh Hewitt finally called them out on this behavior in an interview and – as is to be expected – they tried to deflect the charge with an answer that one can only compare to the equivalent of “well, I have black friends!”. Via hughhewitt.com:
HH: My proposition is, and I’m joined by John Harris, editor of Politico.com, that in the four years since its launch, Politico has marched steadily left, and that Joe Scarborough is not a representative conservative columnist, but that their reporters as well, and their headline writers, have begun to allow the bias to seep through. We went to break, John Harris, I asked you if you had anyone who had worked for a political action committee like Jonathan Allen had worked for Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ political action committee, if you had any of your staff had ever worked for a Republican political action committee.
JH: Well, I’ve had members of my staff work for Republican political candidates. I don’t know whether they worked for political action committees.
Politico’s poor and biased reporting came to a head in the 2016 elections, when they made it no secret that they were anti-Trump and began driving a vicious campaign of leftist propaganda against the current President. What else is to be expected when Politico’s former CEO and president Jim VandeHei, the person who founded and nurtured the entire organization, is a known donor and supporter of Hillary Clinton’s highly-funded campaign. Is there even any real question of impartiality here? Is there any question that Politico is not just another wing of the Democrats hiding under false claims of impartiality?
Adding potential corruption to the mix, it is frequently mentioned online in forums and otherwise, that Politico has an oddly large advertising budget to promote their very leftist articles. Most publications do not need to put money, or sponsorship, behind their journalism. Most publications (especially new media publications) let the work speak for itself, this cannot be said of Politico.
You’d think with their history, Politico would have tried to scale it back to reality, right? Nope. The potential corruption, media bias, and political party favoritism found within the (web)-pages of Politico all came to a crashing head this month, with Politico publishing a slew of attacks against conservatives and conservative publications.
An especially sick Politico piece cheered when a Gateway Pundit reporter was berated and assaulted in the White House. This piece was also notable as it only interviewed Jon Decker and other liberals, without asking a single conservative member of the press what they saw happen. And they still claim honest reporting? Seriously?
That’s not to say there are not a good number of conservatives who remain interested in policy and holding the Trump administration accountable. The Washington Examiner, where Tim Carney recently wrote about how “it’s literally pay to play at Mar-a-Lago,” comes to mind. The stable of writers at The Federalist provides tough perspective, such as a recent column on how Trump’s economic nationalism leads to the kind of Big Government that conservatives are supposed to despise.
First off, equating economic nationalism to big government is a false equivalency as anyone who has read even the most simplistic Econ book will tell you. Her second point, to be a good conservative you need to attack the Trump Administration, is equally false and quite frankly stupid. She is literally saying — from her warped Neocon, Globalist, #NeverTrump, world-view — that the only way to believe in conservative principles is to attack *literally* the most conservative administration that we’ve had in decades. Does that make sense to anyone? Still, though, Amanda Carpenter was not finished, with her drunken counter-intuitive ramble, however, and she decided to go after The Gateway Pundit himself, Jim Hoft. Via Politico:
[…] Hannity often says, “Journalism is dead in America.” He should know. He and the Matt Boyles and Jim Hofts of the world are trying awfully hard to kill it.
Her conclusion implies thatThe Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, along with Matt Boyle and Hannity are “doing his bidding”. That takes the cake. Remember right before this, when she claimed that all conservative reporters need to attack this conservative administration? If Amanda Carpenter considers”his bidding” to be fair reporting, being critical when needed, and congratulatory when warranted, then Amanda is neither a reporter, a conservative, nor does she have a firm grip on reality.