The propagandistic mainstream media isn’t known for its balanced approach to issues. This is certainly true where history is concerned. Case in point: their use of the Weinstein controversy as a catalyst for a retrospective on sexual harassment in politics. But conspicuously missing from this look back at the worst politics has to offer is the media's favorite white president, the "first black president" Bill Clinton.
As we all know but the left won't admit, Clinton has garnered quite the collection of sexual allegations: Kathleen Willey accused him of groping her without consent; Paula Jones accused him of sexual harassment and exposing himself; Juanita Broaddrick accused the former president of rape. He has admitted to an extramarital affair with Gennifer Flowers, and other women have claimed adulterous liaisons with him. Furthermore, he became only the second president in history to be impeached, in his case due to perjury and obstruction of justice regarding his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Yet, in the media’s recent coverage of historical, political sexual scandal, where do they look? At the never-proven, extremely questionable allegations against Republican Supreme Court then-nominee Clarence Thomas, by one woman—Anita Hill—26 years ago. On CNN’s New Day last week, Ms. Hill was featured and praised by anchor Alisyn Camerota:
“All of us, when you were testifying, we would go…into the conference room to watch you. And…all of us were riveted. And it felt like something was changing. It felt like because of your testimony something was going to change. And even afterwards, it felt like maybe there was more awareness and that something had changed. And I'm just curious of how it felt from where you were sitting back then…
So…here we are again during the Harvey Weinstein scandal. What has it been like for you to watch these women come forward and watch all of this unfold?”
For a probe into political sexual scandal, why is the media interviewing--and lending such credibility to--a woman who was never found to be telling the truth, and is the only person to have ever accused Thomas of any impropriety? Surely the sheer number of Clinton accusers—who have claimed much more grievous acts than Thomas’s purported inappropriate comments—make for a better story than that of Justice Thomas. Furthemore, Clinton actually settled out of court with Paula Jones, for an incriminating sum of $850,000. But the media must protect its own.
“As there so often is, the money and power involved. And it's interesting to see how different powerful men have fared against these accusations. Obviously, Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice. President Trump, who, when the "Access Hollywood" tape came out, many women thought, well, that would be the end, but he was elected president. And then there's Harvey Weinstein, who, in short order, has been terminated, and Roger Ailes, who, in short order, after accusations, he was ousted from Fox News. And, so, where do you think we are today with scenarios like this?”
Trump is her example of money and power squashing a scandal? CNN is featuring Hill and referencing a Fox News executive, while leapfrogging over their ever-protected Clinton— the blot of his profoundly sleazy legacy washed from the media’s public record, unlike the stain on Monica’s dress.
For the strongest example of the corruption of power and politics, look no further than to CNN and the leftist mainstream media: look to them for a dishonest narrative benefiting their left-wing agenda; look to them to vilify Republicans and exonerate Democrats. Look to them for these things and more; just don’t look to them for the truth.