Stephen Colbert and the MSM’s barely critical lap dogs

Rush Limbaugh deserves the first word because Anita Dunn’s lapdogs took their shots at him on their week-end shows.

Media Robots Demand Rush Conform on Colbert

My only point is the fact that every one of these people in the media are all saying the same thing, using the same words, the same opinions. What does it make them but robots?

The last thing they are is individuals. I mean, they're all falling over themselves, they're all falling over each other to top each other

Both Reliable Sources and On The Media were lavish in their praise of Colbert and CBS for choosing him. Each as noted, took predictable and mean-spirited shots at Rush to signal their audience that only icky people were opposed to the choice.

Their handling of Colbert was in sharp contrast to “controversies” which liberals care about. For instance, during the Dr. V/Grantland saga, both Reliable Sources and On The Media dealt with GLAAD’s concerns respectfully and with the presumption that those concerns were valid. There was no guest to debate GLAAD’s representative; the hosts gave no push back.

In contrast, conservative concerns are not real concerns to the media critics in the MSM. On The Media saw no need to seek out a conservative voice. Reliable Sources made sure that a liberal hack was on hand to argue the liberal position. The host, in fact, did not even challenge that hack when she accused conservatives of dishonesty and paranoia.

Both programs (and Fox News Media Buzz too) left out two critical subjects in their coverage of Colbert.

First, no one mentioned that his sister recently ran for Congress as a liberal democrat in South Carolina. That fact ran counter to emerging narrative that Colbert is less political (i.e. less liberal) than conservatives think.

Second, no one mentioned the twitter firestorm that erupted when Colbert’s show decided to play with Asian stereotypes and hate speech.

They apparently thought that was no big deal or that it was not offensive because Colbert had his clown nose on.

Except, they are less forgiving of the “no offense meant” defense when that is used by someone other than their pets.

E. G. from an On The Media program dealing with the Washington Redskins.

Here’s Buck’s County Courier Times Executive Editor, Patricia Walker:

PATRICIA WALKER: If it offends some, it’s offensive, so why wouldn't we just support their stand and take the stand ourself to not use the word “Redskins” in the papers?

Well, Michelle Malkin, for one, was offended. By MSM rules, that means that Colbert was offensive.

Offensive in the same way that Justine Sacco was offensive and in the same spirit.

So, by the rules endorsed by both shows, Colbert should have been fired. Instead the hosts worked overtime to heap praise on him.

Stephen Colbert is a brilliant comedian who uses his powers for good. He seems to be a modest man, too modest perhaps, to see that by lightly shedding the cap of his creation, he’s depriving us all of a national treasure. And I’m not joking.

Double standards are the only standards they have.

No wonder no one wanted to deal with #cancelcolbert