The Connecticut Post published a shamefully biased piece on Connecticut Democratic congresswoman Elizabeth Etsy being completely unaware of a relationship between two of her staffers, one of which alleges abuse.
The party affiliation of the congresswoman in question doesn’t show up until the 3rd paragraph of the article. If the congresswoman was a Republican it would be in the headline and everyone would be questioning what kind of show the congresswoman was running.
The Connecticut paper doesn’t seize on the optics of the accused man, Tony Banks going to work for an anti-gun lobby, Sandy Hook Promise, after he’s fired from his post in DC. A fact that isn’t mentioned until the 5th paragraph.
“Ohio Sandy Hook Promise director fired” isn’t how they introduce the accused man. No, it’s mentioned in casual passing “In anticipation of possible criticism by the former staffer, Esty said she feels she was mistaken in several actions she took, including what she described as the “limited” recommendation for a job he subsequently took as Sandy Hook Promise’s Ohio state director.”
But if the party affiliation were reversed one could safely bet that if a man accused of threatening a coworker was fired and went to work for the national rifle association it would be scrolling across on chyrons for days. And if a republican congresswoman helped their disgraced employee get a job afterwards, limited or not, people’s hair would be on fire. Reporters would be asking any Republican they could what they thought of their colleague’s actions as has become a pattern.
The media bias is naked and tiresome at this point, it’s this very kind of thing that propels the “fake news” narrative. Not sure what, if anything, will turn this tide.