Adam Schiff Gets Censured By The House

You might think that the censure of a Congressman would be first page news.  After all, it has only happened 8 times previously in the last 100 years.  And only 24 times in the history of the House.  Except, Adam Schiff is a Democrat.  And he led the the Democrats' first impeachment proceeding against Trump.  So, he is somewhat of a hero to the Democrats, and their advocates in the mainstream media.  

Schiff was accused of "falsehoods, misrepresentations and abuses of sensitive information."  The vote was along party lines, 213 to 209.  Six Republicans voted "present."  Five of those six are on the House Ethics Committee, so it is customary for them to not vote on such a measure, as the they may decide the punishment for Schiff.  

This major story did manage to make page 16 of the 6/22/23 New York Times.  With this headline:  "Republican-Led House Censures Schiff for Role in Trump Investigation."  Let's think about that.  If a Republican was censured, I have no doubt it would have been front page news, and likely above the fold.  And the headline would not have been "Democrat-Led House Censures...whoever."  No, it would have been "House Censures..."  Without the suggestion of party bias.  

And what about the reason for the censure?  The Times is very clear in stating the censure was as a result of Schiff's role investigating Trump.  No, it was because he lied.  And disclosed sensitive information in an effort to destroy Trump.  So, to my liberal friends who believe that the New York Times is the premier paper in the country, do we say "yay" New York Times? 

The Los Angeles Times managed to put this story on page 5 of their 6/22/23 edition.  But given that their entire first section was only 12 pages long (the paper is not what it used to be), it may as well have been page 16.  Here was the headline in the LA Times:  "Schiff embraces censure by House Republicans."  It is a censure by the House, just as the party line vote on Obamacare (with I believe one Republican voting aye after there were already sufficient Democrat votes to pass it), was passed by the House.  Obamacare became law upon Obama's signing it.  The censure was effective as soon as the House passed it.  But party only comes into play when it's the Republicans passing something.  

Back to the headline.  Yes, Schiff embraced the censure, calling it a "badge of honor."  But why was that even part of the headline?  A member of the House was censured for lying and disclosing sensitive information.  And it was all done with the aim of getting Donald Trump.  So, would someone please tell me why these two papers failed to have a headline along these lines:  "Schiff censured for lying and for disclosing sensitive information."  

For those on the Left, allow me to explain.  That would have been a factually accurate headline.  But the mainstream media long ago gave up on making facts their priority.  The spin became more important, as facts took a back seat, all in the pursuit of supporting Democrats.  In the Trump era, the facts took a distant back seat because the goal was to get Trump at all costs.

Permit me to make an offer I have made many times before.  Select any edition of the New York Times, the so-called "paper of record," and I'll show you the bias.  The spin.  And I'd love to hear from someone who believes that only Fox News is biased.