How the NY Times Covered the IRS Whistleblowers

The most ignorant people in America must be those poor souls who rely on the New York Times for their news. The Times is a typical left-wing outlet, in that it exists not to cover the news, but to cover up the news.

Its treatment of yesterday’s House Oversight Committee hearing, featuring testimony by IRS investigators Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, is a case in point. Lest its readers think that something important had happened, the Times buried the story. On its online front page, you had to scroll to the bottom to find this small item:

A note at the end of the story says that it appeared on page A 16 of today’s print newspaper.

So what did the Times consider to be yesterday’s important news? The word “Trump” appeared six times on the front page. If you worked your way past the Times’s daily Trump hysteria, you came to this article, headlined “I.R.S. Whistle-Blowers Allege Political Bias in Hunter Biden Investigation.” The article is partly a reasonably fair description of what Shapley and Ziegler said, but the paper gave priority to the Democrats’ take on the hearing. Thus:

Before regaining control of the House this year, Republicans pledged to use their power to investigate President Biden and his family, launching wide-ranging inquiries. …
***
But if the proceeding at times was a sober recounting of facts and details from a high-profile but secretive investigation, it also veered into rank partisanship, hyperbole and — in a spectacle seldom seen in a Capitol Hill hearing room — sexually explicit material.

The Times tells its readers more about Marjorie Taylor Greene’s questioning than anything else.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the right-wing Republican from Georgia, displayed naked photos of Hunter Biden engaging in sex acts as she questioned whether the evidence found on his laptop that he solicited prostitutes amounted to human trafficking.

More along these lines followed. Then:

Democrats repeatedly expressed disgust at the tenor of the hearing, and the White House condemned it.

“Despite years of obsession and countless wasted taxpayer dollars on a wild goose chase, the @HouseGOP hasn’t offered a single credible piece of evidence of wrongdoing by the President,” Ian Sams, a White House spokesman, wrote on Twitter. “This waste of time reflects the extraordinarily misplaced priorities of House Rs.”
***
Several Democrats on the committee praised the witnesses and said they should be treated with respect. Mr. Raskin argued that Republicans have been throwing everything against the wall in an attempt to smear President Biden.

They have produced no proof that the president committed any crimes, and promoted one potential witness claiming to possess evidence of corruption by the Biden family — only to learn he was accused of brokering arms deals with China and Iran.

“We can conclude that this Inspector Clouseau-style quest for something that doesn’t exist has turned our committee into a theater of the absurd, an exercise in futility and embarrassment,” Mr. Raskin said.

Mr. Raskin also introduced into the record a letter from Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani, who served as the personal lawyer to former President Donald J. Trump and who was tasked with digging up dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine.

The oldest trick in the journalist’s book is giving the last word to the person the journalist agrees with. This is how the Times story concludes:

“There has never been any factual evidence, only conspiracy theories spread by people who knew exactly what they were doing,” Mr. Parnas wrote to Mr. Comer. “With all due respect, Chairman Comer, the narrative you are seeking for this investigation has been proven false many times over, by a wide array of respected sources. There is simply no merit to investigating this matter any further.”

The Times take on the Biden scandal comes from outer space–or, rather, from the DNC–but there are some deluded readers who will actually take it seriously.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses