The New York Times employed dramatically different headlines for similar Supreme Court confirmation hearing answers from Elena Kagan in 2010 and Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday.
Then the solicitor general nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, Kagan's caginess on questions about her own views was covered with the headline, "Kagan Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions." For Kavanaugh, asked about his views on whether President Donald Trump could be subpoenaed or if he could subvert the Russia investigation, the Times wrote, "Kavanaugh Ducks Questions."
This is horrendous media bias. Same situation yet different articles and headlines because one was a liberal and the other conservative. Even though the New York Time's continues to lose revenue and are laying a massive amount of people off, they stay their liberal course. If they would just be more balanced in their approach and provide more "real" news content versus a constant anti-Trump campaign, they might pull themselves out. I hope for their employees' livelihoods, they do.
Then the solicitor general nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, Kagan's caginess on questions about her own views was covered with the headline, "Kagan Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions." For Kavanaugh, asked about his views on whether President Donald Trump could be subpoenaed or if he could subvert the Russia investigation, the Times wrote, "Kavanaugh Ducks Questions."
This is horrendous media bias. Same situation yet different articles and headlines because one was a liberal and the other conservative. Even though the New York Time's continues to lose revenue and are laying a massive amount of people off, they stay their liberal course. If they would just be more balanced in their approach and provide more "real" news content versus a constant anti-Trump campaign, they might pull themselves out. I hope for their employees' livelihoods, they do.
RSS Feed