Interested in a side of pure, unfiltered media bias? Open your eyes to the glaring hypocrisy following the trial of Hunter Biden, in sharp contrast to how the trial of former President Donald Trump was received by the likes of MSNBC’s host Jonathan Capehart and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Last week, the media magnates were on the edge of their seats praising the result of Trump’s conviction, cheering it as a touchstone for law enforcement and shamelessly warning naysayers of being politically motivated threats to our institutions. But let’s move on to the Hunter Biden trial: the tune suddenly changes to a melancholy symphony.
Amna Nawaz, the host, timidly commented on the ‘tough week’ of personal and embarrassing details that unfolded, noting the awkward positions of both Beau Biden’s widow and Hunter’s ex-wife. What about its place in current politics and society? What impact might this turmoil have on the public’s psyche?
Capehart displayed sympathy for the ordeal, casting it as an unfortunate attachment to Trump’s criminal procedures. Republicans’ objective to make Hunter Biden a millstone around his father’s neck was dismissed as irrelevant to the actual nature of the trial in Wilmington.
Oddly enough, the creation of phony business records covering extramarital affairs seemed to evade his memory entirely. Capehart went on to conjecture that, rather than causing political harm, Hunter’s trial might actually foster empathy and aid his father’s numbers. Feels like we’ve just stumbled on the media’s new playbook for damage control.
Brooks, on the other hand, described his uncomfortable experience following the trial, painting Hunter as a tragic figure overshadowed by his father and his ‘amazing brother.’ The drug addiction and subsequent nefarious actions, he reasons, wouldn’t have landed him in a court of law if it weren’t for his presidential ties. And we ought to just leave this all behind, he muses.
By the end of the saga, Brooks concludes that neither Trump’s verdict nor Hunter’s trail of deceit will have any real impact on future elections. But you’ve got to wonder, will they take this same stance if the cards were flipped back to a conservative figure? Your guess is as good as mine.
In an anxiously neutral move, PBS chose to keep the public gaze away from their biased analysis. So the song of bias plays on, reminding us yet again of media hypocrisy when it comes to scrutinizing those in power. They may sing a different tune now, but the melody remains the same: protect the narrative at all costs.
