red states rule
12-09-2014, 03:55 AM
Remember when "Bridgegate" first broke? The liberal media went wild and gleefully had 24/7 coverage thinking Gov Christie would be forced from office. We were saturated with "experts" telling us he was toast and would never be considered as a candidate for President
Well, every investigation has come to the same conclusion - no evidence showing he has directly involved.
But if you relied on the liberal media for your news - you would have no idea he has been cleared. I am no fan of Gov Christie but guess asking the liberal media to cover the results of the investigation with the same level of coverage as they did over the allegation is asking to much
There have now been three investigations clearing Gov. Chris Christie of direct involvement in “Bridgegate.” This latest was conducted by Democrats in New Jersey. The Christie administration’s own investigation and the U.S. attorney’s investigation came to similar conclusions.
But as I’ve said. The media loves swirling allegations against Republicans. Not so much swirling exonerations. Guy Benson examines the press reaction in New Jersey: (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/12/05/demled-investigation-clears-christie-n1927749)
They looked at mountains of evidence and found nothing — zip, nada, nothing — that contradicted what Christie has said all along. The Bergen Record story on the findings (http://www.northjersey.com/news/inquiry-by-legislative-panel-finds-no-evidence-of-christie-involvement-in-gwb-scandal-1.1146761), evidently written by distraught reporters, stretches hard to cast the big take-away as a potential negative for Christie because it “puts a spotlight” on the scandal. Even exonerations are plugged into the “dark cloud” spin machine. Sure, yet another report has backed Christie up, but the fact that we’re even talking about this very serious scandal is bad news for him, or something. Sure.
Meanwhile, the NYT is just makin’ it up, also from Guy: “UPDATE – The New York Times‘ headline on this report is almost virtuosic in its bias: ‘Report Cites Gaps Between Records and Christie’s Comments on Bridge Lane Closings.’ Perfect.”
Noah did a great job of recapping the truly ludicrously intense coverage of this story over the past year. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/archives/2014/12/05/this-is-how-the-medias-christie-bridge-gate-obsession-ends-with-a-whimper/) My personal favorite metric is Christie answered more than 100 questions in the first press conference about this scandal, so interested were they and so keen was he on taking all comers.
Over on MSNBC, which covered the improper closure of these two lanes to the point of crafting hot, primetime fan fiction, the mood is somber or in denial. On “Morning Joe,” the crowd that crowed over the allegations for months on end was dragged into discussing the exoneration by Joe Scarborough, who lightly but obviously ribs his employers and coworkers for their politically convenient obsession. Mika Brzezinski offers a frozen smile followed by eye-rolling and tops if off with a declaration that Scarborough is “too in the weeds.” This from the network that was literally looking to the margins in the diary of a New Jersey mayor for corroboration of their version of the story.
(http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/01/31/verdict-hoboken-mayors-allegations-against-christie-unsupported-by-evidence-n1787303)
Brzezinski also demands that Scarborough “let it play out.” Scarborough exclaims incredulously that it has already played out. That’s what this story means, which in this segment, didn’t even warrant a chyron. Lots of Christie chyrons at MSNBC, but no spares lying around that deal with exoneration, I guess. At what number of investigations would Brzezinski accept an issue as settled for a Republican governor?
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/08/mika-brzezinski-christies-bridgegate-exoneration-too-in-the-weeds-to-cover/
Well, every investigation has come to the same conclusion - no evidence showing he has directly involved.
But if you relied on the liberal media for your news - you would have no idea he has been cleared. I am no fan of Gov Christie but guess asking the liberal media to cover the results of the investigation with the same level of coverage as they did over the allegation is asking to much
There have now been three investigations clearing Gov. Chris Christie of direct involvement in “Bridgegate.” This latest was conducted by Democrats in New Jersey. The Christie administration’s own investigation and the U.S. attorney’s investigation came to similar conclusions.
But as I’ve said. The media loves swirling allegations against Republicans. Not so much swirling exonerations. Guy Benson examines the press reaction in New Jersey: (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/12/05/demled-investigation-clears-christie-n1927749)
They looked at mountains of evidence and found nothing — zip, nada, nothing — that contradicted what Christie has said all along. The Bergen Record story on the findings (http://www.northjersey.com/news/inquiry-by-legislative-panel-finds-no-evidence-of-christie-involvement-in-gwb-scandal-1.1146761), evidently written by distraught reporters, stretches hard to cast the big take-away as a potential negative for Christie because it “puts a spotlight” on the scandal. Even exonerations are plugged into the “dark cloud” spin machine. Sure, yet another report has backed Christie up, but the fact that we’re even talking about this very serious scandal is bad news for him, or something. Sure.
Meanwhile, the NYT is just makin’ it up, also from Guy: “UPDATE – The New York Times‘ headline on this report is almost virtuosic in its bias: ‘Report Cites Gaps Between Records and Christie’s Comments on Bridge Lane Closings.’ Perfect.”
Noah did a great job of recapping the truly ludicrously intense coverage of this story over the past year. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/archives/2014/12/05/this-is-how-the-medias-christie-bridge-gate-obsession-ends-with-a-whimper/) My personal favorite metric is Christie answered more than 100 questions in the first press conference about this scandal, so interested were they and so keen was he on taking all comers.
Over on MSNBC, which covered the improper closure of these two lanes to the point of crafting hot, primetime fan fiction, the mood is somber or in denial. On “Morning Joe,” the crowd that crowed over the allegations for months on end was dragged into discussing the exoneration by Joe Scarborough, who lightly but obviously ribs his employers and coworkers for their politically convenient obsession. Mika Brzezinski offers a frozen smile followed by eye-rolling and tops if off with a declaration that Scarborough is “too in the weeds.” This from the network that was literally looking to the margins in the diary of a New Jersey mayor for corroboration of their version of the story.
(http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/01/31/verdict-hoboken-mayors-allegations-against-christie-unsupported-by-evidence-n1787303)
Brzezinski also demands that Scarborough “let it play out.” Scarborough exclaims incredulously that it has already played out. That’s what this story means, which in this segment, didn’t even warrant a chyron. Lots of Christie chyrons at MSNBC, but no spares lying around that deal with exoneration, I guess. At what number of investigations would Brzezinski accept an issue as settled for a Republican governor?
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/08/mika-brzezinski-christies-bridgegate-exoneration-too-in-the-weeds-to-cover/