What Hannity viewers were told: We’re on our way back to our sprawling campus. Full services resume tomorrow.
In the meantime, consider what happens in a world where only one side complains.
For decades, a basic pattern has obtained with respect to the political reporting of newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Conservative pundits attack such papers, accusing them of “liberal bias” in their political coverage.
By way of contrast, liberal pundits have routinely accepted the work of the Post and the Times, even as they have engaged in decades of faulty attacks on Candidates Clinton, Clinton and Gore.
As a result, voters hear criticisms of conservative figures mocked and explained away. Attacks on the Clintons, no matter how poorly founded, are accepted with barely a word of negative comment.
Sometimes, these poorly-founded attacks on the Clintons are even vouched for by liberal journalists! But then, the careers and the social standing of liberal journalists are connected to the Times and other such news orgs in an array of ways.
In front-page reports in the past few months, the Times has savaged Candidate Clinton and her greedy, dishonorable husband. Leading liberals have left these peculiar reports unchallenged, or have even vouched for the Times’ analyses.
Needless to say, that isn’t what happened when the Times published a pair of recent critical reports about Candidate Rubio. In those instances, conservatives pushed back hard against the Times and its liberal bias.
In fairness, the Times’ first report about Rubio was comically awful, even by New York Times standards. The second report, a front-page effort, was weak in a wide array of ways.
Earlier, two lengthy, front-page attacks on Candidate Clinton had been horribly awful as well. But those reports went almost wholly unchallenged. The recent reports about Candidate Rubio met with pushback from both the right and the left.
Consider what Sean Hannity’s viewers were told last Thursday night. Hannity began his show by noting the fact that “even Obama-lover Jon Stewart” was mocking “the left-wing Times” for its attacks on the glorious Rubio, who had been unfairly maligned.
This is the way the program started, with Hannity citing Stewart’s criticisms of the Times:
HANNITY (6/11/15): All right, welcome to Hannity!Even Stewart, an Obama-lover, had ridiculed the front-page report by the left-wing Times! Hannity could have cited other liberals who criticized the attacks on Rubio, including MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.
The left-wing New York Times is facing massive ridicule tonight after a laughable hit piece that they printed against Senator Marco Rubio.
Now, they lambasted the 2016 Republican hopeful for making what the paper described as “frivolous” purchases. Even Obama-lover Jon Stewart—he couldn't believe it. Watch this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEWART: This morning, The Times [published] a front-page story—front page! It's going to blow the chinos right off of the Rubio campaign.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE BROADCASTER: After a publisher paid Rubio $800,000 to write a book in 2012, the senator paid off $100,000 in law school loans.
STEWART: You bastard!
STEWART: Paying off law school loans? How dare you?
Those may not seem like particularly extravagant expenses worthy of being a New York Times front-page cover story, but it's a slippery slope. It wasn't long before the Rubios were splurging on a whole house!
How is this front-page news? I can't think of a single person who would be bothered by this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: By the way, this was after a report that both Rubio and his wife got tickets from the police, like everybody else.
(To watch Stewart’s full commentary, click here.)
Hannity wasn’t finished. As he continued, his featured a dramatic reading of one part of the Times’ “smear job:”
HANNITY (continuing directly): Now to highlight just how bad this smear job really was, well, we decided to have a little fun with this, and we have brought in the one and only Robin Leach— now, this is a man who knows a thing or two about lifestyles of the rich and famous—to perform a dramatic reading of some of the most ridiculous parts of this article. Let's watch this.After the taped “dramatic reading,” Hannity introduced Leach in person. They ridiculed the Times report, substantially miscasting its actual point. Later, a Rubio spokesperson joined this discussion, making some perfectly sensible points about the Times’ two reports.
This was just one cable program. All around the conservative dial, conservative and moderate voters heard a familiar old story last week—the left-wing Times had been displaying its liberal bias again!
As a general matters, voters have heard this familiar refrain since roughly the dawn of time. Meanwhile, what bias has the Times been displaying in its peculiar attacks on the Clintons?
Very few voters have ever heard such questions asked. Within the career liberal world, such things simply aren’t done.
In truth, the reports about Candidate Rubio were extremely weak; the New York Times does a lot of very poor work. But in some ways, the front-page reports about the Clintons have been even worse.
One side complained, the other side didn’t. Our politics has worked this way for a very long time.