For once, almost the entire media agreed that the CNBC moderators at the GOP debate showed an unacceptable level of political bias and plain incompetence–except for Media Matters for America.
The Soros-funded, tax-exempt left-wing organization functions as a de facto opposition research pit for the Hillary Clinton campaign. So it is perhaps no surprise that it found little to complain about in CNBC’s performance.
In a post on the Media Matters website, senior fellow Eric Boehlert accused “right-wing media” of fomenting the false charge of “supposedly liberal media bias” by the CNBC moderators.
At the liberal ThinkProgress site, Emily Atkin wrote: “Reporters from both conservative and liberal-minded news organizations seem to agree: the CNBC Republican presidential debate was kind of a train wreck.”
Yet Boehlert rejected out-of-hand the idea that CNBC could be left-wing, since it is a business news network “which chronicles and celebrates the exploits of Wall Street tycoons.”
He also claimed that the charge is hypocritical, since the Fox News Channel, which is ostensibly “leading the charge against CNBC, tagging it as hostile and unfair,” was also criticized for hostile questions in the first GOP debate.
Boehlert does believe that there is possible media bias–but only against Hillary Clinton.
He wrote: “…the one person who would have a completely legitimate beef with the press this campaign season, and the one person who has been the target of an unprecedented barrage of negatives [sic] attacks is, of course, Hillary Clinton,” he writes.
In fact, he argued, “Republican candidates have been on the receiving end of fawning press coverage for a very, very long time.”
The charge of liberal media bias against CNBC is just “the ultimate comfort blanket” against the chilling thought of Hillary Clinton’s resurgence, Boehlert concluded.
As a 501(c)3 tax-exempt charity, Media Matters is not allowed to engage in political campaigning.