Politico's media correspondent and arbiter of cosmic journalistic harmony, Dylan Byers, simply outdoes himself in his latest Solomonic edict, "Ted Cruz, Wendy Davis and media bias."
Yes, your guess is correct. Byers writes precisely what the headline implies: that we should ...
forgive conservatives for being upset with the mainstream media's coverage of the Cruz affair. When a Democrat like Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis filibusters against abortion restrictions, she is elevated to hero status, her tennis shoes become totems. When Cruz grandstands against Obamacare, he is a laughingstock in the eyes of many journalists on Twitter, an "embarrassment" in the eyes of The New York Times editorial board.
Well sure there's a "difference between filibustering and grandstanding," concedes Byers. But that critical difference stops him not. He's determined to bury, not praise, context.
In Cruz's case, "grandstanding" is nothing more than a euphemism for utterly despicable acts of rhetorical malignancy, such as when he heavily implied that decorated war veteran and Defense nominee Chuck Hagel was in the traitorous employ of Iran and North Korea. Might such a charge, let's say, taint whatever it is that Cruz is now doing? Might it immensely differentiate Cruz from Wendy Davis? Oh heaven forfend. Yes there's a "difference" between the two--between Davis and Cruz, between filibustering and, ahem, grandstanding--but it really shouldn't influence good journalism.
Byers' puritanical allegiance to Balance Über Alles oddly enough dictates a descent into the grotesque. I gather that according to his theory of journalistic propriety, every negative reference to Adolf Hitler in any news story should instantly be balanced by an accompanying reference to his courageous message-running during WWI, as well his enduring love of (blonde-haired) children and dogs. We shouldn't wish to stack the historical deck in the reader's mind. Let's be fair about this. I mean, hey, Adolf had his good points, you know?