When video surfaced of an ABC News anchor venting her frustration about the network covering up the Jeffrey Epstein story, network bosses scrambled to come up with an explanation. The story didn’t meet ABC’s “editorial standards,” it was ultimately claimed.
However, despite its apparent reluctance to expose damning information about Epstein — a convicted pedophile — ABC didn’t hesitate to breathlessly publicize allegations of gang rape against Brett Kavanaugh last year, as numerous conservative outlets, including the Washington Examiner, have pointed out.
ABC protected Epstein, slammed Kavanaugh
Like the rest of the media establishment, ABC credulously covered wild allegations against Brett Kavanaugh last year before any supporting evidence materialized. The network even went so far as to promote claims from a woman named Julie Swetnick, whose accusations of gang rape quickly fell apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
But while smearing Kavanaugh, ABC deliberately protected an actual, known pedophile, namely, disgraced money man Jeffrey Epstein. Project Veritas published shocking video Tuesday of ABC reporter Amy Robach complaining on a hot mic about how she “had everything” on Epstein three years ago, but that the network quashed the story.
“I had it all three years ago,” Robach said. “She had pictures. She had everything,” she added, referring to Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre. “It was unbelievable what we had. We had Clinton. We had everything.”
Robach clearly got in trouble with the higher-ups, as she later issued a limp-wristed retraction echoing ABC’s narrative: Robach said that she had been caught “in a private moment of frustration” and that she “could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations,” squarely contradicting her own candid commentary. ABC had the story three years before the nation’s most high-profile prisoner was jailed for sex trafficking, but ABC executives want people to believe that the story didn’t meet their “standards.”
But what are ABC’s “standards?” As the Examiner observes, ABC dedicated six hours to promoting unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault against the then-embattled judge between September 13 and 24 of 2018, only 8% of which mentioned Kavanaugh’s denials. Sadly, what does and does not meet ABC’s “editorial standards” seems to be a matter of pure politics.
Double standards and public distrust
When it comes to targeting conservatives, the media’s overriding philosophy is “shoot first, correct later.” But when it comes to reporting on powerful pedophiles, it doesn’t matter how much evidence there may be: if somebody in the rarified atmosphere of the elite wants to kill a story, then it will mysteriously be declared journalistically substandard.
As the Examiner points out, Robach also suggested that head honchos thought it was a “stupid” story, but that clearly wasn’t the case, as ABC’s own George Stephanopoulos attended a party at Epstein’s New York mansion in which Prince Andrew was in attendance. As Robach herself said, Buckingham Palace discovered Giuffre’s allegations against Prince Andrew and “threatened us a million ways,” leaving ABC “so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will that we, that also quashed the story.”
This is all one can say with certainty about mainstream media’s so-called “standards.” Describing a terror leader as an “austere religious scholar,” promoting deranged Russia collusion fantasies, and mercilessly libeling a father and husband because of his political affiliation is fine. But bombshell evidence of a pedophile ring is “stupid” and not worth printing.
It wasn’t long ago that it came to light that NBC news covered up for Harvey Weinstein. And this is all the work of the self-appointed gatekeepers in the legacy media who tell themselves, and the public, that it’s their job to keep people “informed” and hold the powerful accountable.
Even President Trump’s rhetoric on this subject isn’t harsh enough to portray the depths of the media’s galling hypocrisy. Enemy of the people, indeed.
No comments: