Just as soon as the impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden’s corruption was announced, the media quickly pounced on Republicans in an attempt to undermine the inquiry.
For example, a reporter insisted to Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) that Americans “can’t see” evidence that merits an impeachment inquiry and asked what evidence Republicans actually have to prove they aren’t just out for “political revenge” on behalf of Donald Trump.
Perry had the receipts and promptly embarrassed her.
On Thursday, AP reporter Farnoush Amiri similarly pushed the “no evidence” narrative during a press conference with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who systematically destroyed the premise of her accusation by getting her to admit there actually was a lot of evidence to support opening the inquiry. As my PJM colleague Athena Thorne wrote Thursday, “The media has been going into overdrive to slap the ‘without evidence’ repudiation on the growing cloud of smog surrounding the Biden Crime Family.”
It’s true. But since when does the media care about evidence? Can they spare us phony baloney? Even if we ignore the fact that there is a multitude of damning evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony, financial records, photos, and video, the fact is, they didn’t care about evidence when they endlessly reported on the false allegations that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election. In fact, The New York Times and The Washington Post both won Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting on the bogus scandal.
They won this prestigious award for a fake story.
We know it is a fake story because, to this day, there has never been any evidence to prove it. We don’t just know this because the Mueller investigation couldn’t find any evidence—members of the Obama-Biden administration testified that they never had any empirical evidence of collusion. But the media reported on it as if it were true. They didn’t care about the lack of evidence.
Related: CNN Fact Check Hilariously Proves Case for Biden Impeachment Inquiry
The media has also failed to show an interest in evidence when it contradicts the narrative they want to push.
In 2020, The Atlantic published a story claiming that President Donald Trump didn’t want to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018 because the troops there who died in battle were “losers” and “suckers.” The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief cared so little about verifying the story’s legitimacy that none of over a dozen witnesses with Trump that day were asked to confirm or deny it. Why not? Because they all said it never happened.
And then there’s the Hunter Biden laptop. The media went to great lengths to find reasons not to report on it, including elevating bogus claims that it was Russian disinformation. The owner of the computer repair shop in Wilmington, Del., literally had a signed receipt proving Hunter did bring the laptop in for repair, which he never came back for. Text messages, photos, and videos from the laptop made it obvious that it was legitimate, but the media wouldn’t touch it until well after the 2020 election was over.
There are countless examples like these, and as much as we’ve come to expect such ridiculous double standards from the media, that doesn’t make them any less infuriating.
