(NationalSentinel) Media: What a difference an administration makes.
Breitbart News picked up on an interesting, if not wholly expected, factoid this morning regarding the latest Alt-Left “outrage” over Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ call to all remaining U.S. attorneys appointed by former President Obama to resign, in order to ensure an “orderly transition” to the Trump administration. (RELATED: Preet Bharara drama over firing as U.S. attorney completely typical of the whiny Left)
Seems that Politico, true to its Leftist roots, characterized Obama’s firing of U.S. attorneys much differently than it is now characterizing Trump’s firing of U.S. attorneys:
With news flooding the media that President Donald Trump has requested the resignations of 46 U.S. attorneys appointed by Barack Obama, Politico’s coverage slapped Trump with a headline screaming that the president was about to unceremoniously “oust” Obama’s appointees.
Back in 2009, Politico had a much less sensational headline when reporting on all the Bush-era U.S. attorneys that Obama fired.
For its March 10 article, Politico‘s editors chose a purposely provocative headline: “Trump team ousts Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys.” The writer, Josh Gernstein, added more bogus hype when he claimed in the first paragraph that Sessions’ action was “a seemingly abrupt move that surprised many.” Moreover, he then gave voice to Trump critics who called the move “politically fraught,” among other things.
And poof! The latest Trump administration “controversy” is born – after being created out of whole cloth by the media.
Like our reporting? Sign up for our daily email newsletter and never miss a story! Click here
In 2009, however, when the Obama regime did the exact same thing, Politico ran a decidedly much less, er, critical piece:
In 2009, Politico’s article on Obama’s decision to begin firing Bush-era attorneys was blandly entitled, “Obama to replace U.S. Attorneys.” Noticeably missing was the negative “oust” thrown at Trump. Instead, a milder “replace” was used to describe Obama’s actions.
The 2009 article was also written as a straight news piece with no negative connotations, no finger wagging, and no voices of opposition. In fact, the closest Politico got to negativity in 2009 was to say that Obama’s order “began to resolve the questions” over whether Obama would fire Bush’s attorneys in light of the trouble Bush got into from the left when he fired some of Clinton’s appointees back in 2006.
Finally, to put an even finer point on the bias exhibited between the two articles, the writer of the 2009 piece was none other than Josh Gerstein, the same writer responsible for the attack on Trump’s resignation request today.
Mind you, we don’t expect these ideologues posing as ‘journalists’ to change anything at all about the way they report or the controversies they themselves create anytime soon. But it is instructive to point out any instances of bias like this one, as it serves the public’s interest. The more of these examples readers are exposed to, the harder it will be for hacks to slant their coverage of the issues of the day.