Joe Biden

Why Are the Mainstream Media Ignoring Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden?

So far, it's been silence from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and others.

|


On September 14, 2018, The New York Times reported the existence of an unverified sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The story cited three people who had read a letter sent by the accuser—Christine Blasey Ford—to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D–Calif.). Ford was not interviewed for the story; indeed, she wasn't named.

Unconfirmed reports of a teenaged Kavanaugh assaulting a teenaged Ford evidently merited coverage from The Times. This prompts an obvious question: Why is the paper of record now declining to publicize a very troubling allegation against former Vice President Joe Biden?

The Times is hardly alone in this regard. The mainstream media have remained bafflingly silent about Tara Reade, a former member of then-Senator Biden's staff who claims that he sexually assaulted her in 1993. Reade's name has only appeared twice in The Washington Post, and both were quick asides: A news roundup from April of last year briefly acknowledged an earlier, milder version of Reade's accusation, and a recent rapid-fire Q&A asked a Post political reporter to weigh-in on the political ramifications "of the Tara Reade bombshell." (The nature of the bombshell is not described.)

And while the coronavirus pandemic is obviously dominating news coverage, CNN has made plenty of time for Biden. Chris Cillizza is still ranking Biden's potential veep choices, and the network conducted a virtual townhall event with the candidate last Friday. Reade's name didn't come up, and it has never appeared at CNN.com. At NBC, it's the same story: Chuck Todd interviewed Biden but didn't ask about the allegation.

Reade's story has garnered some coverage elsewhere, most noticeably from The Hill and The Intercept. Some left-leaning news sites—The Huffington Post, Vox—have written about it, and of course conservative media are all over the story. But the biggest mainstream print and TV outlets are, at present, silent.

I am not the only one to notice this. The Columbia Journalism Review notes that "media outlets on both the left and the right have covered Reade's claim, yet mainstream news organizations have mostly avoided it." That article links to a piece in The Guardian—part of a recurring feature called "The Week in Patriarchy"—that suggests the media may be ignoring the story because Reade's accusations will be "difficult to prove." To its credit, the Guardian piece acknowledges that this would be inconsistent with how the Kavanaugh accusation was handled.

That's what's most frustrating about this lack of mainstream coverage. Ideally, all media outlets—mainstream or otherwise—would tread carefully with respect to decades-old accusations. They would not rush to publish unverified rumors, instead carefully vetting them to the best of their ability. They would consider whether every salacious or scandalous detail of an important person's past is worth revisiting.

Perhaps that's what reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other outlets are doing. (I have heard it third-hand that various stories might be in the works, but nobody at those publications would confirm anything to me.) But Reade has already come forward. She has already identified herself and told her story. At this stage in the process of the Kavanaugh accusation's public reveal, the mainstream press was already actively covering it.

As I wrote last week, there's a case for taking Reade's accusation more seriously than Ford's, since the behavior described by Reade (penetrative sexual assault during Biden's Senate years) is even worse than what was described by Ford.

And while it's certainly true that there's currently a global pandemic unfolding, that isn't a good excuse to avoid discussing Reade. In fact, there's some reason to proceed quickly: The Democratic Party will soon nominate Joe Biden to be its presidential candidate, but Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) is technically still in the race, and he is still making the case that he should be the one to face President Donald Trump in November. Whether or not Biden is credibly accused of sexual assault is extremely relevant to this rapidly approaching decision point. This seems only slightly less urgent than covering Kavanaugh's alleged misbehavior during the period immediately before his confirmation to the Supreme Court.

If the media's rule is this—We're going to proceed extremely cautiously when revisiting unverified sexual misconduct allegations that are several decades years old—then fine. But that's a new rule, isn't it?

Advertisement

NEXT: This Business Is Suing the Government Over a Coronavirus Closure Order

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That’s a rhetorical question, right?

    1. That’s a rhetorical question, right?

      1. Shouldn’t we assume all questions are rhetorical?

        1. No. Doh!

          1. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

            1. Buy American, imports causes viruses!

              1. By the time I pay the dealer, and for the bailouts, I can’t afford to “Buy American”.

              2. Everything ‘American’ is made in Mexico.

              3. Do you have a pay~pal ? in the event if you have you can get an extra 850 week after week in your profit just working from home three hours every day. check out this link Read More

          2. Reason is obvious. Media supports Democrats and Biden. They are useless. They don’t want to harm Biden. He could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and nothing would happen. Isn’t that what Trump claimed? Wouldn’t work for the Donald but would work for Biden.

      2. Either that or a stupid one…

        1. I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart… Details here

          1. Anndbattie is lying scum, andnothing good will come from his/her its bullshit above. Why does Reason allow crap like this on its comments site????

      3. And how

      4. Easy answer: Democrats, Biden, Clinton, et al SHOULD be able to rape women and get away with it, as getting a Dem elected is more important to Dems than getting an honest non-rapist in office.

      5. My immediate thought to the headline was, it must be tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.

    2. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link… Details Here

    3. You don’t have to vote Republican or Democrat. You can actually think for yourself and vote for any of the parties that do not nominate sexual offenders as their candidates. This could be libertarian, green, peace and freedom and others. There is no reason why you have to vote Democrat or Republican. Don’t think you’re being strategic. You are one person with one vote. You are trivial and your “strategy” amounts to nothing important. Vote correctly according to your conscience.

      1. That is true, but it won’t ever happen. Most Americans believe their chosen party is the only way to go.

  2. …this would be inconsistent with how the Kavanaugh accusation was handled.

    The difference is that Joe Biden isn’t guaranteed to put women’s uteri back in chains.

    1. Joe’s so ancient he still calls it the hystera.

      1. I’m (almost) ashamed at how hard I laughed at that.

        1. I’n not.

        2. ROLF,ROLF, ROLF, ROLF,ROLF, ROLF, ROLF,ROLF, ROLF, ROLF,ROLF, ROLF,! I’m not, but then trolls stupidity always make me laugh!

          1. Right but you said you eat shit Hihn.

          2. Were you going for “ROFL” or “Rolling on the Floor Laughing”?

        3. It was hysterical.

    2. Nobody is going to put women’s uteri in chains.

    3. Quite the intellectually silly out-of-touch-with-reality demagogic response. AND the Kavanaugh facts, rarely repeated, rarely noted are:
      (A) Blasey Ford testified that she disclosed the identity of her assailant during therapy sessions in 2011-2012. Blasey Ford complained that the FBI investigation was woefully inadequate.
      BLASEY FORD REFUSED THE FBI’S REQUEST TO REVIEW HER THERAPY RECORDS (to corroborate her testimony).

      (B) Blasey Ford testified that as to identifying her assailant, and other details, that she passed a polygraph test with flying colors.
      Blasey Ford complained that the FBI’s investigation was woefully inadequate. BLASEY FORD REFUSED THE FBI’S REQUEST TO REVIEW HER POLYGRAPH EXAM RECORDS.

      1. Not to mention that she was caught in two easily falsifiable lies during her testimony
        1) Fear of flying
        2) The second front door

  3. “media outlets on both the left and the right have covered Reade’s claim, yet mainstream news organizations have mostly avoided it.”

    Nice one, CJR – there’s the mainstream media, then there’s leftist media, and there’s rightist media. Three separate categories!

    1. To elaborate: The left-wing media are the ones who proclaim that socialism has never been tried, so vote for Bernie.

      The right-wing media are the ones who want you to vote for Trump.

      The middle-of-the-road mainstream media are the Biden supporters who avoid the extremes of Trumpian fascism on the one hand, and the commendable but premature enthusiasm of the socialists on the other hand.

      Maintaining a balance!

      1. The mainstream media present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist, but this is merely a way of defending their class interests.

      2. The right-wing media are the ones who want you to vote for Trump.

        The right wing media used to be overwhelmingly anti-Trump, but they have come around over the last few years.

        The middle-of-the-road mainstream media are the Biden supporters

        That’s the narrative Democrats are pushing. It’s b.s. Biden is a socialist/fascist pretty much just like Sanders. Unlike Sanders, Biden isn’t even full there mentally.

        1. I think my remark was meant as largely sarcastic, giving a parodic interpretation of the “mainstream” media’s self-interpretation.

          1. Sorry, I made my first comment before realizing how bad you are at sarcasm.

        2. I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart……….Read MoRe   

      3. Trumpian fascism? That’s like the “middle-of-the-road mainstream media” or moderate democrats: purely imaginary.

    2. Wow, have you missed a lot. There are several shades of bias in the media, but the phrase “Main Stream Media” or “MSM” has been used to refer to the very strongly left leaning channels for some time now. To attempt to redefine the phrase as centrist is just silly.

      1. Come on, if such ancient terms as “man” and “woman” can be redefined, why not the lamestream, i mean mainstream media? A word means whatever the culture queens say it does, nothing more, nothing less.

  4. And stories like this are why I still like Robby as writer even when TDS gets the best of him. No one else would be publishing these stories at Reason if Robby wasn’t here.

    (Note, this is also why I generally like ENB, when outside her TDS and abortion. Being allowed to exchange cash for sex is about as libertarian as they come)

    1. “If it weren’t for Robby no one at all would’ve questioned the ‘Dear Colleagues’ shit storm!”

      Jesus Christ! Does he pay you to suck his dick like that or do you do it just to get an audience with his hair?

      1. Honey, Reason is shit. It has been going down hill for a while now. These articles where Robby calls out the sheer insanity of MeToo are about all Reason still does right.

        1. mostly good on firearm rights and the 2nd Amendment.

  5. The Plague is absorbing all the media’s time right now. But when it is time to insert Cuomo into the presidential race, then you won’t be able to watch news or cable without hearing about this “credible” accusation.

    1. Cuomo, just today, said multiple times that he’s not running for president. I thought he might run but now I’m almost positive that they’ll find a way to anoint him the nominee.

      1. Nah it will be Hillary. She’ll swoop in from the wings to “rescue” the democrats from a rapist, and the Democrats will get another four years of blaming sexism for their loss.

        1. She needs to get out ahead of this and say more loudly and more frequently that she is also not running for President. Just in case we forgot that she’s also not running.

      2. It’s too late for him to actually throw his hat in the ring, but don’t be surprised if the DNC sets up a brokered convention and he gets nominated. Biden is an utter fucking embarrassment, and the DNC look like asses right now for making everyone else drop out and endorse him so they don’t get unpersoned by the party. Cuomo is getting his dick sucked by the media right now, and they’re clearly posturing him as a “leader” to contrast with Trump. It’s somewhat hilarious, because they’ve run the same playbook ever since they anointed Obama as Mr. Next in 2004.

        1. What’s really funny is they think running an authoritarian NY douche nozzle against an authoritarian NY douche nozzle is gonna sway the middle to vote for their preferred brand of authoritarianism.

          1. Agreed. This to me was one of the many short comings (see what I did there) of Bloomberg.

            Why would the average Democrat or Independent get all fired up to vote for the same guy with a different letter after his name?

        2. He’ll maybe get the VP nom.

          Which, considering Biden’s condition, is effectively the same as being president.

      3. I’m not running for President, either.

        *Ahem* – perhaps you didn’t hear me, I said I’m not running for President.

        Hello! I said I’m not running for President.

        Darn, doesn’t work, maybe you need the magic slippers.

    2. And his comments about mask theft and chloroquine and telling people to go out and party en masse (in the fucking MIDDLE OF MARCH!!) will all be memory-holed.

      That’s just how they roll…

  6. “Why Are the Mainstream Media Ignoring Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden?”

    You mean Joe Biden, last human standing (D) POTUS candidate?
    Does that answer your question?

    1. “…a former member of then-Senator Biden’s staff who claims that he sexually assaulted her in 1993.”

      Say it ain’t so, Joe!

      It’s 1919 all over again except with a media assist.

    2. The Left believes in nothing but Power.
      All discourse is simply rhetorical manipulation to the end of Power.

      They’re not arguing in good faith. Accepting that saves a lot of wasted effort.

      1. Foucaultean analysis starts with the premise that all human interaction is based on power.

        That’s how far I got in semiotics.

  7. Why Are the Mainstream Media Ignoring Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden?

    I think we all know to that question. Because CORONAVIRUS WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE AIIEEEEEEEEE!!!!1!!!!!111!!!!!

    And totally not because the media is biased in favor of “diamond Joe,” no sirree.

    1. As we all know, the purpose of journalism is to protect members of the Democratic Party. The more strenuously you defend them, the better you are at journalism and the more awards you get.

  8. “there’s a case for taking Reade’s accusation more seriously than Ford’s”

    Forget about the action that occurred. It has the first step in investigating one of these claims.

    Can you put the two of them together at the same place? Have they ever met? If you can prove that then you proceed. If you can’t then you stop.

    1. Forget about CBF – THEY ARE TAKING IT LESS SERIOUSLY THAN JULIE SWETNICK

  9. Mainstream media: That horse was beat to death years ago.

    1. No, it was shot, and there’s a piece of metal in my roast beef sandwich.

      Oops, sorry, Scott (“Dilbert”) Adams, you can have your joke back.

  10. Nothing is going to happen here until after the election of Joe Biden.
    Then this story will “break” with fire and fury, and the anointed VP selected by the democrat elite will move up after ol’ Joe takes one for the team and gets impeached.

    1. From now on, every President with an opposite party House will be impeached.

      1. “From now on, every President with an opposite party House will be impeached.”

        Yeah, cause that’s how republicans roll. Lindsey Graham says he is ready to start subpoenaing people and an investigation into sniffin’ Joe right after he finishes with the fraudulent FISA warrants. He said he wants to be ready on day 1. Don’t leave your seat. It’s gonna happen.

    2. I wonder does he even know how he’s being set up? This is worse than when Ed Wood tried to get footage of a dying Bela Lugosi into his movie.

      Wait! Are we going to end up with Biden’s dentist as POTUS?

  11. For the same reason the media aren’t “mainstream” any more, and in fact there’s no such thing as mainstream: because they are in the pocket of the theftists, and will never cast shade on their party.

  12. They are not journalists, they are the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party.

  13. “there’s a case for taking Reade’s accusation more seriously than Ford’s”

    There was a less than zero case to take Ford’s accusation seriously so I’m inclined to give Creepy Uncle Joe the benefit of the doubt on this one.

    1. You know, I agree with you…
      …except that Biden has made a strong point of “believe all women”.

      That’s a conundrum for him to deal with, but deal with it he should, because he’s the one riding around claiming to be the better man.

      If you make me chose between man who assaults women and brags about it, or a man who maybe assaults women and will contort himself into knots to get out of having to deal with the accusation, I’m just going to go ahead and vote some somebody else entirely, because they’re both kind of terrible people on their own merits.

  14. 1. The accusations against Joe Biden are complete nonsense, just as silly and unprovable as the accusations against . A good reason not to cover them is because they are horseshit.
    2. Of course CNN and NBC and all those lefty rags are going to ignore it. They function as a not-at-all-disguised mouthpiece for the democratic party. Why would they rumormonger flat out lies about their own candidate? You want to know who IS inserting Tara Reade wherever they can in between breathless beer flu updates? Fox. Surprise surprise. The official-unofficial-official mouthpiece of the republican party except on those days that Donald Trump gets really pissed off at them for going down on him insufficiently far, but that’s less often than he fires his own staff for “treason”.
    3. Robby Fuckin “Credible Accusations” Soave, haven’t you lost your #MeToo license yet? No one wants to hear you pretend to suddenly have a principled interest in the truth. If I came out to news media tomorrow with a story about how Donald Trump personally diddled me in an ice station at the south pole in 1865 you’d be the first person at more doorstep to parrot the ‘concerning details’ of my story. To Be Sure.

    1. Trump fled to South Pole to Dodge Civil War Draft, then had sex with Internet commenter: Allegations

      1. Alternate Joke: He wasn’t at the South Pole, he was on the grassy knoll with John Wilkes Booth.

        1. Go home Eddy you’re sarcasmic.

          1. I think that was meant as an insult, but it’s hard to keep track.

          2. Yep! Better try sex in essen for your own pleasure!

    2. The news media created this impossible standard. The only way to put things back in perspective is for the news media to act like complete hypocrites.

      1. I have every confidence in their ability to “act like complete hypocrites”.

    3. And further, I don’t watch Fox Snooze so I can’t really judge their coverage, but they’d be perfectly justified if they poke all the relevant players in a neutral way so as to show the hypocrisy of the rest of the media.

      However, I’m guessing they’re acting just like CNN and everyone else… so it’s hypocrisy all the way down, but I maintain it’s instructive hypocrisy.

      1. This is one of my least favorite takes by the reason staff. They start with a “Fox started it” point of view.

        Fox news was explicitly created in the 90’s because of several TV news journalist’s opinion that coverage from CNN and the 4 networks was so over the top biased that there was an opportunity to create a counterbalance. A news organization that would be “fair and balanced” – and as such would stand out in stark contrast on the media landscape.

        Their idea turned out to be a good one and it worked, even if the other players complained that covering things any way other than their way was “right wing”. Of course, over the years their night-time pundit programming proved to be very biased.

        Back during the 2004 election there was a very instructive moment. Vietnam was going to be a prominent issue, with Kerry being a decorated war Vet and Bush getting soft treatment in the national guard.

        Matt Drudge was known for more than just writing headlines for links. He sometimes got exclusive stories – like Monica Lewinski. In this case, he had the story of a plan by CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS to coordinate with the Kerry campaign. In two weeks all 5 networks would spend the week covering the Vietnam war. Each network was assigned a different day to do their assigned story. At the same time, the Kerry campaign would be doing a national push on the issue with planned appearances and a heavy advertising blitz.

        This should have been a huge story. This sort of collusion is, of course, a violation of federal election law. And when the week began, Drudge was proven right. The networks were promoting their upcoming stories, and Kerry was on message.

        Then Dan Rather happened. When CBS ran their story about Bush being AWOL, they relied on forged documents. Ooops.

        That knocked the whole bit about the war on it’s keister. And it wiped Drudge’s predictions right out of the public conscience. All there was room for was assigning blame to the producers of the CBS news segment.

        Of course, anyone who watched the Obama years knows that this phenomenon has only grown in the intervening time. The coordination during the Kavenaugh hearings was fairly overt.

        So it is just ridiculous when you hear people say that the left is just copying what Fox News does, or what the far-right does.

        Sure, all political actors are hypocrites. They all point out specks in other people’s eyes while ignoring their own planks. That goes without saying.

        But there is not a bi-directional cause and effect here. There is a historical record, and it is clear and unequivocal. Fox is a reaction to a subversion of the 4th estate. Idiots like Beck and Jones are a reaction to the further drift we saw after the arrival of Fox.

        It makes me wonder what is next. When I was a kid, journalists pretended to be objective. The highest goal was to hold power accountable – like Woodward and Bernstein. They would dig out the truth.

        Although they’ll still use some of those words, nobody seriously pretends any more. There is politics, and only politics. And nobody is content to cover the horse race anymore. The all believe themselves to be the kingmakers. So we get the onslaught of ludicrous political point-scoring in every news story.

        How much farther can the fringe go? I didn’t think it was possible for the mainstream media to get this insane – they make 15 years ago Glen Beck look fairly rational and normal by comparison. Of course, this will provoke another reaction. Someone is going to go even farther out there as a counterbalance. I couldn’t imagine the world we currently live in, so I have no idea what this new world looks like. But somehow I don’t think it can possibly be good.

        1. The genius of Fox wasn’t in countering liberal extremism with equal but opposite conservative extremism. It was the realization that news media does not exist, largely, to tell people what is going on. The truth is “important” insofar as news consumers like to feel good about what they consume. To that extent it’s important that people feel like what they are consuming is truthful. It makes them feel righteous and smart. But what news consumers really want. What they will tune their eyes to for long periods of time and pay real money to have is entertainment that tells them they were right all along and confirms their every bias. Restated, the genius of Fox wasn’t in realizing that there was a powerful conservative story that wasn’t being told in American news. It was realizing that there was a huge population of Americans who weren’t being affirmed by the news that they were consuming. Like any good capitalist enterprise it spotted a hole in the market and it filled it.

          There is simply no market for unbiased truth in America. No one wants it so why would anyone do the work or spend the money to provide it?

          1. This is probably true as an analysis of why fox has been so successful. Choir preaching is a fantastic way to gained a loyal audience.

            But Tony snow and others who were there at the time have spoken extensively about why they start in the Fox News project. It was explicitly because there was such uniform bias in the news at the time. They explicitly stated that they felt that an actually unbiased news source was the way to go. Being actually fair and balanced would set them apart and leave them as the go-to to news source.

            Now, that may or may not be where they ended up. But that is very explicitly what they set out to do. And that is the reason I described it thus. Because it underlines just how serious and long-standing the slant of the news has been.

            Of course, I don’t think you can put the bias of the news in the 80s and 90s in the same category as the open propaganda we face today. But it is a very long-standing trend.

  15. I don’t watch TV news, has Joe Biden been seen in public lately? Seems like it hasn’t crept into my periphery the way one normally can’t avoid.

    1. Maybe that’s a wise campaign strategy for him.

    2. He caught a bug that’s been going around

      1. I’ve heard nothing about CV19 causing dementia.

      2. What happens if ALL the major candidates die before the election?

  16. “”Why Are the Mainstream Media Ignoring Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden?””

    It’s funny that Robby has to ask the question.

    1. I wonder if he is that credulous or just feels he has to write like he is in order to remain in the good graces of the journalism guild?

    2. Because Orange Man Bad?

  17. We have bigger fish to fry at the moment. Plus, the Kavanaugh hearings set the standard for now that no one gives a fuck about sexual assault.

    1. No, Bill Clinton set that standard. The Kavanaugh hearings demonstrated that facts and reality matter more than your feelz.

      1. Or perhaps the Senate lead by democrats set the standard when they decided Clinton’s guilt was not worthy of removal from office.

        1. ^Winner. Senate Dems set the standard.

    2. Fuck your stupid.

    3. “We have bigger fish to fry at the moment.”

      ‘Look over there!!!’

  18. “If the media’s rule is this—We’re going to proceed extremely cautiously when revisiting unverified sexual misconduct allegations that are several decades years old—then fine. But that’s a new rule, isn’t it?”

    Wait, is there where you pretend to have principles and argue that rules are there for a reason? And here I thought you claimed that Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals were only ever employed by conservatives.

    You’re hypocritical garbage.

  19. “The Times is hardly alone in this regard. The mainstream media have remained bafflingly silent”

    There’s nothing ‘baffling’ about it. It’s ‘their guy’. Must defeat Orange Man Bad. etc.

    It’s only ‘baffling’ to those who still think legacy papers and broadcasters are ‘objective’.

    Kavanaugh and Covington are just two among many examples.

    1. Considering Reason Roundup is becoming a summary of NYT, WAPO, and CNN coverage and Tweets many mornings, Reason still appears to think they are objective.

    2. And who was at the tip of the spear in both of those cases? NBC news and Savannah Guthrie. Her interviews of the “tribal elder” and Sandman were epic hit pieces that came long after it was impossible to pretend that the initial reporting was valid. And she was reportedly at a meeting at Schumer’s NYC penthouse apartment the night that the Ford letter was leaked, as a part of the strategy session that would determine how the story was handled.

  20. Why the uneven treatment? It’s a real mystery.
    Trump’s Supreme Court nominee vs the presidential candidate that 90% of the mainstream media will vote for in the 2020 election.
    I can’t think of any reason for the disparity in coverage.

  21. It’s not a new rule. The double standard has always been the rule.

  22. NY Times, Wapo, CNN are media? Really? I thought they were house organs of the crony democratic establishment with deep roots in NYC statists from Eastern Europe…you know the kind that defended Trotsky, Ukrainians were never starved, and the Rosenbergs were innocent and the American who care about the constitution are isolationists and racists.

  23. Just like they’re all covering Pelosi’s “everyone get out to Chinatown” in San Francisco a few weeks ago. Just like they covered Biden’s Ukraine dealings. Nah, they’re covering Pelosi’s Trump is killing people narrative.

    The less Joey talks or they mention his name, the better for cronies in future green tech mandates, bans and their financiers .

  24. How unfair! The looter media will shift all attention to Drug War Biden’s rape of subordinates as soon as it first exposes the way the U.S.-funded World Health Organization refuses to say a single word about Taiwan’s handling of the Communi-virus epidemic. Please understand that the better people, who know what the riff-raff are ready to hear about, have their own sensitive, concerned and aware priorities, beginning with censorship of all awkward questions that might embarrass totalitarian altruism. Peace out

    1. You’re amazing

  25. If someone came forward accusing Trump of this there’d be a complete break down of the media system covering it. You can bet on it.

    Covid whaaaa?

  26. Strange, I recall the MSM told us all about GHWB having dementia-related handiness. But not an actual rape by someone who who happens to be a famous Democrat.

  27. Well they don’t like Trump. I’m sure Fox News is all over it. In comparison to the multiple accusations of sexual assault Trump faces this seems meager. The accusations against Trump haven’t shown up recently on mainstream media headlines either.

    1. Other than the year they spent trying to make the stripper and her (now in prison) lawyer famous.

    2. A: there are about 8 women who have included Biden of some form of inappropriate behavior. B: we know why the media won’t cover this, because it’s Biden. If this were Trump OR Bernie, they’d be all over it.

  28. Robby… are you mentally ill? Or is your virtue signal that hard-wired?

    “there’s a case for taking Reade’s accusation more seriously than Ford’s, since the behavior described by Reade (penetrative sexual assault during Biden’s Senate years) is even worse than what was described by Ford.”

    What in the ever-loving hell? A case to be made?

    Ford described what at worst could be described as a grope over her shirt during some horseplay by a teenager. Reade describes actual legal rape by a responsible adult and member of the Senate.

    Ford’s case was not only difficult to prove – it proved impossible to prove. Even though it was almost impossible to disprove such vague allegations some 35 years later, you have to be a hardcore partisan to claim he did anything other than categorically refute the allegations. He even managed to produce a calendar from the period that is fairly strong proof that he never attended such a party, and her star witness and best friend says she never met Kavanaugh, never attended such a party and does not believe that her story is true. You are never going to get better proof than that in a he-said, she said type of accusation.

    Meanwhile, Biden is accused by someone who was a working adult at the time, in a work setting. He was the most powerful person in that work setting. Nobody was drunk. Nobody was a teenager. And the allegation isn’t anything that can be dismissed as horseplay. She alleges a felony sexual assault.

    The two cannot really be reasonably compared. Ford should never have been taken seriously and it never should have received media attention. Even if every syllable was true, there is no way such a story is dispositive of the fitness of a 55 year old man in a job interview.

    Meanwhile, nobody is going to pretend that sticking your fingers in a subordinate’s vagina without consent in the workplace is irrelevant to your fitness to the workplace – even if a nearly 80 year old Joe Biden is unlikely to successfully repeat such an act.

    This milquetoast article is one of the hardest hitting articles on this topic – so I suppose you deserve some credit for have the nerve to even tackle the subject. But good lord, you are tiptoeing around it like there is some controversy here.

    The media openly collaborated with the senate democrats led by Chuck Schumer. They pretended not to know the source of the leak – when there was a large strategy meeting including several members of major media organizations.

    There is an actual story here – a big story that can go backward to Journolist. But nobody is brave enough to actually do that investigation. There are not just 5 or 10 people who know the true story on this one. There have to be dozens. At some point, someone is going to brag — how did we find out about the 2 am meeting at Schumer’s apartment the night before the Ford letter leak, after all?

    But nobody bothers to follow up and pull the story together. Instead, we get one minor player at a heavily subsidized minor outlet with a serious ideological bent writing a limp-wristed semi-takedown that actually pretends that it is controversial to think that rape by a 50 year old senator in the office is nearly as bad as a high school kid grabbing some girl’s boob at a party.

    Holy crap, the world is insane.

    The next thing you are going to tell me is that we have some reality show blowhard as president.

  29. Back in the 80’s Ronald Reagan was accused of date rape in the 40’s when he was between marriages. All three network news broadcasts led with that story that night.
    When Monica Lewinski’s story came out it was done by Drudge as Newsweek decided to spike it. When the Juanita Broderick Rape Allegation came out no network news broadcast it, except for 20/20. I think, and they were castigated for it by no less than Tom Brokaw. They broadcast allegations of Bush 1, Clarence Thomas, Dan Quayle and even beloved Maverick McCain. If you don’t see a pattern here you may want to get a vision check or a brain scan.

  30. Ideally, all media outlets—mainstream or otherwise—would tread carefully with respect to decades-old accusations. . . instead carefully vetting them to the best of their ability. . .

    To its credit, the Guardian piece acknowledges that this would be inconsistent with how the Kavanaugh accusation was handled.

    *looks over top of monitor at Soave, with one eyebrow raised*

    But that’s a new rule, isn’t it?

    Yes. I guess it is.

  31. . . . there’s a case for taking Reade’s accusation more seriously than Ford’s, since the behavior described by Reade (penetrative sexual assault during Biden’s Senate years) is even worse than what was described by Ford.

    SMDH

    Soave, there is no relationship between the severity of the crime asserted and the believability of the accuser. And if you’re going to say that, legally, investigatively (which I believe is what you’re saying) – how much more serious should we take it compared to Ford? There was an federal investigation. People tried to crucify the man. Biden should go through *worse* because the ALLEGED crime is worse?

    1. I think you are reading that backwards.

      He means that in an objective Universe if you had these two allegations standing and isolation from everything else and you were to evaluate the seriousness with which one should take them, you can make the argument that Reade’s allegations are more serious than Ford’s.

      And he is right. In an objective Universe Ford’s allegations are difficult to take terribly seriously. She was not even able to narrow down the date closer than a two-year period. And even a contemporaneous allegation likely would not have resulted in any police action, given the nature of the alleged acts and the age of the participants.

      Meanwhile, Reade’s allegation comes with a specific time and place and had it been reported contemporaneously would have been prosecuted as a felony were police and prosecutors to find her credible.

      In fact, I take issue with the very thought that it might be controversial that the one is more serious than the other. The former is a rather unserious allegation that was taken more seriously than any allegations since the OJ Simpson trial.

      And the latter has been completely ignored and buried.

      This media criticism is something that is woefully lacking. And I don’t mean random right wing nutjobs complaining on internet blogs. I mean serious media criticism. It just doesn’t exist anymore. The world should have been aghast that major media Outlets were collaborating with the DNC and the Clinton campaign to rig the Democratic primary. But anti-clinton right-wingers and Bernie Bros are the only people who seem to remember that it even happened.

      The ghost of Edward R Murrow should be aghast that Soave is the bravest media critic in all of Journalism at this moment in time. He was right about Rolling Stone and got excoriated for it. He was on the right side of the jussie Smollett case, which was extremely obvious from the outset, and although many people have since taking the side of the police on that one, very few have bothered to and their lances at the media that uncritically repeated his allegations. Suave was on the right side of the Covington High School boys allegations and was one of the few writers to have anything to say about the media’s handling of the issue.

      That he is one of only a handful of writers brave enough to take on this obviously flawed media landscape should give everyone pause. His writing in such instances is extremely cautious and generally inserts several “to be sure” asides to make sure that he is not branded a Denizen of the far right. But at least he is willing to cover the story. Which is more than I can say for anyone else in journalism today. Basically you have Suave and Glenn Greenwald talking about these issues and very few others.

  32. Come on… Nobody is THIS stupid.

    Shit like this is exactly how anybody with a functioning brain can realize how controlled and in the tank for the left wing the overwhelming majority of the media is.

    One thing I always find interesting is that EVEN WITH a full tilt press pushing for commie bullshit, half the country still says fuck no. It makes one wonder what political opinions would be like if we even had a remotely neutral media in this country… And Hollywood too, since that also warps dumb peoples perceptions. And the educational system!

    Basically it takes ALL those levers of control just to trick barely half the population into believing in stupid shit.

    1. don’t assume that just because they believe this shit they’re dumb, nor that if they don’t believe it that they’re somehow smart. Remember that a lot of these folks have been brainwashed for years. “Repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.”

      1. That’s my point. Many otherwise intelligent people believe leftist BS because they’ve never bothered to think deeply on the subject in question, and the “default” opinion that was fed to them is commie crap.

        And yes, there are knee jerk conservatives/libertarians who have correct opinions on things, but don’t understand the reasons and logic that make those the correct choices.

        Thing is, I’ll still take somebody with the correct opinion just based on their “gut” over a brilliant person with a wrong opinion they arrived at through brainwashing.

        1. oh, me too, but I was trying to say that it’s a bad idea to consider anyone who holds X viewpoint as automatically stupid, especially since that’s what plenty of the liberals do.

          1. Many of them AREN’T stupid… Which is what sucks so bad.

            The fact that more education equals more left wing thinking is very troubling… Because real world competent/smart, AKA making money and other positive life outcomes, tend to lean towards conservative/libertarian thinking… But a whole subset of smart people, the ones that do lots of formal schooling, are getting brainwashed to be leftist idiots.

            The fact that people who are clearly comparable in IQ/real world competence end up on completely different ends of the political spectrum solely based on how much formal schooling they have shows just how well indoctrination works. And that’s scary.

    2. Thank you, vek and DF, my analysis includes emotional intelligence. Peer pressure is most effective with the young or emotionally immature. They battle with bad data and emotional disorders, and the result is often gibberous/madness. Better data and maturity can help. Stay positive.

      1. Yeah. It’s really sad… I’ve tried explaining some of the “tough” issues to really, really smart friends of mine… And all they ever go back to is spouting off incoherent nonsense they’ve been fed, OR they fall back to the moral plea that somehow logic and truth don’t matter, because it’s mean!

        It’s rough explaining the reality of economics to somebody… Let along discussing why women cannot compete with men in many spheres, even if you quote the ENDLESS scientific literature that clearly proves men and women have different distributions of both physical AND mental traits.

        A lifetime of brainwashing combined with peer pressure from Hollywood and other people they know makes smart people ignore the reality that’s right in front of their face.

        Many VERY smart libertarians on here refuse to grapple with such issues, like the male-female differences and the implications that has for a democratic society. Ditto with IQ distribution amongst men, the concept of universal suffrage (HORRIBLE IDEA!), and the implications THAT has on a democratic society. People don’t have the balls to discuss the real tough issues, because they’ve been conditioned to think certain ways. Universal male suffrage was the beginning of the end of freedom in the USA, and universal female suffrage was the guaranteed route to socialism because of their natural inclinations.

        I don’t like it… But it is what it is…

  33. To Robbys’s point, I scroll through my entire Apple News feed this morning, and there is not a single mention of Tara Reade. But there were five stories at least about the Tiger King.

    1. UPDATE: As of 4.1.20, still not a single Tara Reade story on my Apple News feed. But five more stories about the Tiger King. And a story about Howard Stern attacking Trump.

  34. Contradiction and hypocrisy are the hallmark of Leftists and their news rags.

  35. malignancy + incapicity = slavery (Camus) – most of the nyt staff and readership do not care … read Parenti’s Inventing Reality regarding power. I worked for both Punch and Pinch and still hope for a pension :D!

  36. Was I the only one hoping that this was the other Tara Reade/Reid?

    1. Gross! I wouldn’t wanna think of Creepy Uncle Joe getting a piece of that… When I never got to 🙁

      1. And back in the 90’s that Tara Reid was fine.

  37. My general experience has been that women do not lie about these things. As with Dr. Ford, I do wonder why the witness waited until this moment in time to come forward. I would welcome Senator Biden’s response to this matter, hopefully it will be more authentic and less maudlin than Kavanaugh’s embarrassing fake outrage.

    And if Biden’s chances are killed, fine. The Dems can call Liz or Bernie, who are upgrades anyway and far less likely to bring a family of grifters in to run the country or to bomb Iran for no reason.

    1. “My general experience has been that women do not lie about these things.”

      Which is worth exactly jack shit.

      1. You don’t think that was said with a wink and a nod?

        1. Not if you read the rest of the comment.

    2. Most don’t, but it does happen, and that’s the problem with all of these claims. How do you know which accusation without proof is true and which is not?

      1. Even without all the “Believe All Women” bullshit, any sort of he said she said criminal cases are tough… Because they’re basically 100% impossible to prove one way or another. If no 3rd party saw stuff, and there’s no video, hard evidence, etc they can never be proved either way.

        So does that mean all rape cases without the above should be dismissed? Or all found guilty? What about all threats somebody will kill somebody else?

        It is a sticky part of the law, even if one is trying to be fair, reasonable, and only nail the real bad guys.

    3. “As with Dr. Ford, I do wonder why the witness waited until this moment in time to come forward.”

      Tara Reade went public about the assault many years ago. And she was ignored for years, that is why you don’t know about it.

    4. “…I would welcome Senator Biden’s response to this matter, hopefully it will be more authentic and less maudlin than Kavanaugh’s embarrassing fake outrage…”

      Perhaps better than your bullshit.

  38. So not Tara Reid?

    Another Tara. Lost interest at that point.

  39. They won’t cover it because it hurts “Old Nice Uncle Joe” and they can’t have that. And it’s not just that he’s a Democrat; if the accusation was against Bernie Sanders, the MSNBC, Rachel Maddow crowd would be all over this story. Guaranteed. Trump or Bernie: cover the hell out of it. Ol’ Nice (Creepy, Sniffy) Uncle Joe, nothing to see here.

  40. “Why Are the Mainstream Media Ignoring Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden?”
    They don’t want him to start bleeding in his left eye.
    There’s Uncle Joe he’s a groping kinda low at the Junction, Petticoat Junction.

  41. It’s not a new rule, it’s an old rule that has long existed to give cover to Democratic politicians for things they bludgeon Republicans for

  42. Does the author of this post always ask questions to which he already knows the answer?

  43. All the above it true, but honestly, that video chat picture of her in the story makes her look like a crazy old lady. She was a stone cold fox in her day and maybe if those hotter pics start circulating, the story will get legs.
    I know, this is sad.

    1. I think we have a winner. I’m kind-of proud of myself for not thinking of this before I read this comment.

  44. I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business. Here what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you….. Read More  

  45. Collective response July 2018:
    *clutching pearls* WE BELIEVE YOU, DR. FORD!!!!

    Collective response March 2020:
    *clenching fists* SHUT UP, BITCH!!!!

  46. Because it’s #toolate.

  47. Biden has the demeanor of an overused crash test dummy held together with duct tape and bailing wire. Biden is overdue for his appointment with the glue factory. Biden would be humiliated by Trump in a debate.

    One possibility is that Reade may be sacrificing herself as a false flag so Trump will take the bait and get burned, but Trump doesn’t need Reade to defeat Biden.

    If Read was really a threat to Biden, Democrats would launch a smear campaign against her and she would wind up eating Chef-Boy-R-Dee in a van down by the river.

    Trumps’ polling numbers are rising during the corona virus crisis that is about to cripple the economy. Trump has about as much chance of being defeated as FDR did in 1944.

    Maybe Reade will resurface, if Jill or Hunter Biden run for President at some later date.

  48. You don’t have to vote Republican or Democrat. You can actually think for yourself and vote for any of the parties that do not nominate sexual offenders as their candidates. This could be libertarian, green, peace and freedom and others. There is no reason why you have to vote Democrat or Republican. Don’t think you’re being strategic. You are one person with one vote. You are trivial and your “strategy” amounts to nothing important. Vote correctly according to your conscience.

  49. “there’s a case for taking Reade’s accusation more seriously than Ford’s, since the behavior described by Reade (penetrative sexual assault during Biden’s Senate years) is even worse than what was described by Ford.”

    And there’s a case for taking Reade’s accusation less seriously than Ford’s, since Ford’s story remained substantially the same while Reade’s story escalated substantially after a year of the initial version not getting any traction.

  50. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop…. Read More  

  51. But when will you characterize Tara Reade and her story as CREDIBLE, Robby?

  52. The left invented the idea of “whataboutism” just for this purpose. To dismiss obvious discrepancies between coverage of similar stories based on political affiliation.
    So why not ask about “whataboutism”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.