07-16-2018 03:35:09 PM -0700
07-16-2018 10:17:06 AM -0700
07-16-2018 07:10:22 AM -0700
07-15-2018 02:41:03 PM -0700
07-13-2018 10:59:54 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!

At Hot Air, Allahpundit posits that he thinks "the future is total omerta:"

If a partisan outlook is inherently discrediting, let’s at least be consistent. But then, if a partisan outlook is inherently discrediting, the story never should have aired on NBC in the first place. Drudge or no Drudge.

I think the future is total omerta. If Joe Klein can’t bring himself to type “Free Beacon” once in an eight-paragraph whinge about the Hillary story, we’re already near the point of reporters refusing to cover Clinton criticism from righty sources entirely. Exit question: Applying Mitchell’s own standards, what’s the argument for continuing to attribute scoops to MSNBC by name instead of to “an anti-Republican news outlet” without naming the network at all? They’re nastier and more ruthlessly partisan than any mainstream conservative rival, Fox News included. If ideological bias is discrediting, they should pull the plug.

Update: Say my name! Hillary's version of the Journolist sure gets the omerta memo out fast, and not just to NBC affiliates:

In response, Ace asks, "This brings up a question I've been wondering about a lot:"

In the old days, we would complain about media bias. We strongly preferred an unbiased media, but as a second-best option, we often said things like, "They can be as biased as they like, as long as they admit their bias." If you inform the public of your bias, you've disclosed your conflict of interest. So that can be said to be fair disclosure.

Of course, the media is not willing to confess it has a bias. But in MSNBC's case, the bias is so brazen and ridiculous that one could say it's essentially admitted, even if they continue, when asked, to insist they are "non-partisan."

So the question presented is, "Were we right when we thought it would be better if the media just confessed their bias?"

Because, having seen what it looks like, I'm not so sure it is better. MSNBC is simply taking this as a liberation to be as crudely partisan as possible.

William Bigelow of Big Journalism suggested that “MSNBC Scrambles Behind the Scenes to Change Its Vitriolic Culture.” Might want to try harder there, folks.