Bias? What bias? We’re not biased. Just ask us. Are we?

Chris Matthews — who has been downright spiteful in his coverage of Hillary Clinton — reports that she is attacking back. But David Shuster, the correspondent, explains it all away: “Attacking the media is not new. Presidents and politicians have been doing it for a long time, usually to deflect their own problems, often to tap into a perceived voter hostility towards journalists. The problem for Hillary Clinton is that her charges may reinforce concerns about her credibility.” His illogic: Clinton says that some in the media want her to quit. Shuster says that though they have declared her campaign over, nobody asked for her to quit. And besides, he says, the continuing campaign is good for ratings. But then he then goes on to declare himself, “She will not win.”

Incredible. He says she can’t be credible accusing the media of bias because he says the media aren’t biased and he says you can believe that because he’s credible and so she’s not.

  • Ryan

    Actually, Jeff, I think your bias is coming into play here. Shuster’s last quote wasn’t an editorializing “She will not win.” It was “Whatever the media thinks about the Clinton camp strategy or their statements, it doesn’t really matter. Because Hillary Clinton is going to keep on going until she thinks it’s appropriate to get out. And at this pace it will be long after the math made it clear she will not win.”

    Shuster may or may not be biased against Hillary, but his statement is true to anyone who has been following this race (and not gulping down Terry McAulliffe talking points).

  • PXLated

    Yep, he’s just stating a fact.

  • http://www.therealestatebloggers.com Tom

    Same old song and dance. The media has been doing this for the past 30 years every election cycle and they are good at it.

    Now it is happening to your candidate instead of an evil Republican and it is evident.

    Imagine if the media was either truly unbiased or honestly biased. I know this is one of your key points Jeff, but remember the facts come October when the media is doing to McCain what it is now doing to Hillary.

  • http://www.beatcanvas.com Brett Rogers

    If you’re not in his niche, why watch? Let him narrow himself and stop expecting that he’s something that he isn’t.

  • http://sciencevsromance.net josh

    1. Every time “the media” refers to her campaign as “the Clintons” they reveal their open bias.

    2. Are we all supposed to forget why “the Clintons” might not [heart] “the media”?

  • Banjo

    Wasn’t the fact — I repeat, fact — of media bias established long ago? Why keep picking at this scab?

  • Guy Love

    Bias is in the eye of the beholder. The insular traditional media types cling tenaciously to their self-appointed objectivity and truly believe criticism of their reporting is unjust. Meanwhile, their market share evaporates and diversity of opinion and views thrive online. That being said, Hillary is indeed facing the “Vast Left Wing” conspiracy that wanted her to quit running for president as far back as Texas.

  • http://www.pakorakorner.com Pran

    I agree with Ryan (the first comment). I think Shuster was just summarizing that the math won’t work for Hillary. I think you are taking “She will not win” out of context, and one could argue thereby showing your bias!

  • http://www.skrillex.org Skrillex

    What he says does have credibility, all this is doing is resurfacing something everyone already knew.