Look At How Differently The New York Times Covered Elena Kagan’s Confirmation Vs. Kavanaugh

This is a classic case of media bias which shows how the New York Times and other liberal outlets use a completely different approach based on party politics. Take a look at the two headlines below and you’ll see exactly what we mean.

The Washington Free Beacon has more on this:

NY Times: Kagan ‘Follows Precedent’ by Not Offering Opinions, While Kavanaugh ‘Ducks Questions’

The New York Times employed dramatically different headlines for similar Supreme Court confirmation hearing answers from Elena Kagan in 2010 and Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday.

POLL: Do You Think Trump Was The Real Winner Of The Election?

Completing this poll entitles you to ProTrumpNews updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime with a single click. Here's the Privacy Policy.

Then the solicitor general nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, Kagan’s caginess on questions about her own views was covered with the headline, “Kagan Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions.” For Kavanaugh, asked about his views on whether President Donald Trump could be subpoenaed or if he could subvert the Russia investigation, the Times wrote, “Kavanaugh Ducks Questions on Presidential Powers and Subpoenas.”

White House spokesman Raj Shah wrote, “Double standard anyone?” in an email blasting the differences.

Do they really think no one can see this for what it is? The bias is as plain as the nose on your face.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.