If you’ve been paying attention to the media since, well, forever, you know that the questions reporters ask aren’t nearly as important as the questions they don’t ask. And that they tend not to ask certain questions of certain people. And that those certain people are called Democrats.
I’ve had my differences with Erik Wemple of the Washington Post, but I have to give him credit for calling out the NYT’s Jonathan Van Meter, who wrote that 8,500-word puff piece on Anthony and Huma Weiner last April. The one that helped that dong-dangler launch his hilarious campaign for mayor of NYC. It was called “Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin’s Post-Scandal Playbook.” If you haven’t read the story, that title gives you no reason to bother. As we now know, and as most people outside the nation’s newsrooms assumed all along, Anthony and Huma were only between scandals.
Reading through the story, it’s clear that Van Meter’s piece was premised on the notion that Weiner’s self-destructive online activities had long, long since ceased. Had he pushed the politico on just when he gave up his lewd relationships with other women on the Internet, Van Meter’s recorder would have scored some precious words from Weiner. Or perhaps even a prolonged period of silence. When asked about that point, Van Meter replied via Facebook message: “Never even occurred to me to ask! I just assumed it had stopped when he got caught, lost his job and started therapy to save his marriage.”
Well, of course Van Meter assumed that. Of course he showed no skepticism whatsoever. Of course his very first question to Weiner wasn’t, “So, have you stopped sending pictures of your penis to women on the Internet?”
After all, Anthony Weiner isn’t a Republican.
The NYT might follow up on this. One of those “How did we screw up this story?” pieces they keep needing to do, where they blame everything but their own biases. Should be amusing.
For a summary of that crappy NYT piece, see “Anthony Weiner for Mayor: Glans, Rested, and Ready.” I’m really going to miss this guy when he goes away again. Writing the headlines is so much fun.
By the way, if anybody from the NYT happens upon this post, there’s one more thing you should remember: Andrew Breitbart was right. Ha ha.
(Hat tip: JWF)
Update: Glenn Reynolds on the Democrat Party’s War on Women.
Update: I missed this at the time, but the NYT actually interviewed Van Meter about his laughable puff piece. Actual question: “How was this different from more straightforward political reporting? Do you usually get the strong sense of being your subject’s shrink?” Stronger than his sense of being a reporter, that’s for sure.
Update: Is he still at it? Yes or no?
“You can quibble about beginnings, middles and ends but what we’re talking about is over a year ago.”
So that’s a yes. Yes, Anthony Weiner is still sending dick-pics to women on the Internet. Is that really shocking to anybody outside the New York Times Building?
Update: John Nolte notes:
And now, after dozens of reporters from major news outlets swarmed Weiner for weeks, not a single outlet — not Politico, not BuzzFeed, not the New York Times — has audio or even a quote they can shove in Anthony Weiner’s face of him responding to a question about when the sexting stopped.
Because. No. One. Bothered. To. Ask.
This is about more than some creepy politician. This is about an overwhelmingly liberal media failing to do their jobs, over and over and over.
Update: A week ago, we didn’t know the name Sydney Leathers and she claimed she wanted to keep it that way. Now she’s doing, um, bikini photoshoots for the NY Post and talking to Howard Stern. She’s considering getting into porn, but she wants to get a boob job first. So much for my sympathy…
Update: How much has Bill Clinton influenced Anthony Weiner? Well, when he can’t remember a woman’s first name, his first guess is always “Monica.”