In the coverage of Jeb! announcing that he's running for President, naturally a lot of attention has been paid to Jeb! himself. One thing I haven't seen much commented on has been the coverage of Jeb!, specifically by the Times.
How does the Times treat the rhetoric of presidential candidates? Let's use Bernie as a baseline, and look at the "FirstDraft" coverage of Bernie's kick-off rally (under the headline "Bernie Sanders Challenges Hillary Clinton at His First Rally"):
Senator Bernie Sanders . . . played the liberal purist . . . Mr. Sanders, an avowed socialist and former mayor of this bucolic sanctuary for political progressives, took so many emphatic and uncompromising stands . . . Mr. Sanders offered nothing in the way of strategies for getting his left-wing policy ideas through the politically gridlocked Congress . . . Mr. Sanders is currently far behind Mrs. Clinton in most public opinion polls and has far smaller political and fund-raising operations than she has . . .Mr. Sanders’s ideas were not particularly new — he has already proposed his trillion-dollar jobs legislation, to no practical effect . . .
And let me say to all that, fair enough! We should welcome a press that questions the claims of politicians. And if that's not a fair baseline, how about
the Times coverage of Hillary's first big campaign speech at Roosevelt Island? Instead of the Times itself criticizing the candidate, they handed the mic to Republicans:
. . .While some Republican detractors have tried to make an issue of Mrs. Clinton’s age . . . Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called the speech “chock-full of hypocritical attacks, partisan rhetoric and ideas from the past that led to a sluggish economy.” . . . In a campaign in which Republicans have emphasized the growing threat of Islamic terrorism and an unstable Middle East, Mrs. Clinton hardly mentioned foreign policy . . .
And, gasp!, they actually mentioned criticism of Hillary - from the left! Is this a brave new age in journalism, where the New York Times doesn't just act as a stenographer for politicians? Are they going to actually give voice to all political points of view?
Don't hold your breath. The Times returned to form with their coverage of the Jeb! announcement.
Here is every Democratic criticism of Jeb's positions given in the article:
....
Here is every time the New York Times critiqued a Jeb! statement, the way they critiqued Bernie's speech at his opening rally:
...
Okay, that last one may be a bit unfair. The Times does mention SOME criticism of Jeb - as a platform for Jeb! to attack the criticism:
Mr. Bush directly confronted the central doubt looming over his candidacy: that he presents the latest incarnation of a tired dynasty and thinks himself entitled to the Republican nomination . . . it was a day of competing and contradictory messages: Even as Mr. Bush assailed Washington as a “club” of “pampered elites,” he was inviting Americans to turn the White House over again to his wealthy family, whose privilege, connections and power have been passed down for generations.
Guess how many times Bernie and Hillary were allowed to respond to the peanut gallery comments in the articles above - zero. Not at all. The only criticism of Jeb presented is the criticism that he was addressing in the speech. Huh.
And, oh, don't forget the gratuitous fawning:
Jeb Bush, a son and brother of presidents . . . Mr. Bush turned his announcement rally here into a carefully choreographed reintroduction and a muscular attack on his rivals in both parties . . He tried to distinguish himself as an executive animated by big ideas and uniquely capable of carrying them out . . . Mr. Bush, whose tenure as governor of Florida was marked by the privatization of traditional state services . . . called upon his record of ambitious, conservative-minded change as Florida’s chief executive . . . Mr. Bush, 62, clad in a light blue button-down shirt that highlighted his thinner physique after months of dieting . . . Mr. Bush . . . plainly relished being in his polyglot adopted hometown, delivering several lines in noticeably comfortable Spanish . . .
What can you expect, though,
from the paper that already brought us a glowing biography of the "self-described nerd" who hobnobs with Ivy League experts during think weeks, the "voracious reader," "an intellectual in search of new ideas," who "frequently, and enthusiastically" grapples with "improving the effectiveness of government in areas like education, immigration, and criminal justice," the Phi Beta Kappa grad who friends call a "top-drawer intellect," and an "ideas junkie." The Times let us know that "there is little dispute over Mr. Bush's firm command of government's smallest details" - he even read bills in their entirety! Let's see an example of the fresh-faced, youthful,
modern independent in action:
First of all the climate is changing. Um, I don't think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. I just don't-- it's convoluted and for the people to say the science is decided on this is just really arrogant to be honest with you. It's intellectual arrogance that now you can't have a conversation even... (regarding other countries) A small part in terms of prioritization we need to encourage the (nations) states that have had an increase in carbon emissions, WE'RE not one of them! We've had a decrease, a pretty significant decrease and it will continue on, not because of Barack Obama, but because of the energy revolution, because of free-enterprise, because of private property rights because of American innovation has created a combination of two existing technologies: hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling has created an explosion of lower carbon energy that is being used to replace higher carbon energy. Source.
Oh. Hm. I guess the New York Times subscribes to the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance school of journalism: When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. Can you imagine a world where the press actually did critical journalism of Republican candidates? You get the final word, Jeb - "Rewriting history is hypothetical . . . If we're gonna get back into hypotheticals I think it does a disservice for a lot of people that sacrificed a lot."