Reform the Mainstream News Media
Remember when Marco Rubio drank some water while giving the Republican response to the president's 2013 State of the Union address? Remember how CNN ran a picture of the Florida Senator taking his sip with a chyron reading: "Career Ender"? “So can a drink of water make or break a political career?” Wolf Blitzer asked. Politico ran more than one column discussing Rubio's "water thing." Most other major (read Democrat) news venues covered it too.
So my question is this, if a drink of water threatens the career of a Republican, what happens when a former Democrat congressman makes sexual Twitter advances to a minor causing the FBI to seize the computer of his wife, the Democrat presidential candidate's aide and a woman with ties to radical Islam, and the said computer is found to contain emails that potentially exposed classified information to our enemies so that said candidate could hide her likely influence peddling? Worse than a sip of water? Better? I'm asking for a friend.
Klavan's Second Rule of Mainstream Journalism has been on full display this weekend: "When a scandal breaks on the right, what's important is the content of the scandal. When a scandal breaks on the left, what's important is where the information came from and how it was obtained."
So many in the press are struggling to make this story about FBI Director James Comey and whether he should have informed Congress of the bureau's find. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has accused Comey of being a hack trying to influence an election instead of doing his job (insert takes-one-to-know-one joke here). A CNN legal analyst called for the director's resignation. As HotAir points out, this is after the media rushed to Comey's defense when he simultaneously announced grounds for Hillary Clinton's indictment and refused to indict.
In this year's Manhattan Institute Wriston Lecture, excerpted in the Wall Street Journal, historian Andrew Roberts made a suggestion I've been touting privately for years. The Republican Party needs to reform its presidential nominating system to limit the number of candidates who qualify to debate:
The percentages of support that guarantee a candidate a place in the debate should be drastically higher so that you don’t have a dozen or more people taking part and thus sometimes given no more than 30 seconds in which to try to sum up complex issues, leading to a moronically low standard of debate.