Perhaps the most posh position a politician can find him or herself in is the leader of the Democratic presidential primary. Once there, you can save money on campaign expenditures by firing your communications team because the liberal media will craft your talking points for you. As we covered this week, the Washington Free Beacon as well as Mediate exposed two gaping holes in Massachusetts' Sen. Elizabeth Warren's longtime claim of being fired from teaching in the early 1970s because she was "visibly" pregnant. Warren's own words from 2007 rebut this claim as do official school district minutes which show that not only did Warren receive a job offer for a second year, but that her resignation was "accepted with regret." But, for those leftists in mainstream outlets, they see no reason to press Warren on these claims any further. In fact, they are willingly going out of their way to defend her.
The Washington Post's Margaret Sullivan blamed conservative media for this story, saying, "If there is a scandal here, it’s how — in the bad-faith media world — narrowly presented facts without sufficient context can do unfair harm. They can and will be weaponized, falsely regurgitated and twisted beyond recognition."
Another WaPo writer, Eli Rosenberg, deployed the use of actual women who were fired and discriminated against because of pregnancy as if this were some how definitive proof it happened to Warren. As AG_Conservative said via Twitter, "Imagine how little @emrosenberg thinks of Washington Post readers to write this nonsense... 'A bunch of other women wrote that they were victims of pregnancy discrimination so it's a smear to consider evidence Warren may be lying about being a victim of similar discrimination,'" he tweeted.
Imagine how little @emrosenberg thinks of Washington Post readers to write this nonsense...
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) October 10, 2019
"A bunch of other women wrote that they were victims of pregnancy discrimination so it's a smear to consider evidence Warren may be lying about being a victim of similar discrimination" https://t.co/F0nMSdNFPw
The New York Times echoed these claims, tweeting, "Senator Elizabeth Warren further detailed her experience of losing a teaching job because of pregnancy, refuting a conservative news site's challenge of her account. 'I had an experience millions of women will recognize,' she tweeted," accompanied by an article that explains the historical legacy of female discrimination.
CNBC's John Harwood used a similar line, saying, "does anybody seriously believe it was not as everyday as sunrise that employers made pregnant women leave their jobs 50 years ago? get real."
does anybody seriously believe it was not as everyday as sunrise that employers made pregnant women leave their jobs 50 years ago?
— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) October 9, 2019
get real
But the debate is not whether this happened to other women or still happens to women. It is a question of whether or not it happened to one woman in particular -- Sen. Warren. The Daily Caller's Peter Hasson summed it up nicely:
"This is the logic of a four-year-old at work here. Nobody is saying pregnancy discrimination doesn't happen; the question is whether a presidential candidate lied about being the victim of pregnancy discrimination," Hasson tweeted.
This is the logic of a four-year-old at work here. Nobody is saying pregnancy discrimination doesn't happen; the question is whether a presidential candidate lied about being the victim of pregnancy discrimination https://t.co/274UTQRu11
— Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) October 10, 2019
Cultural history shows women were discriminated against, but Sen. Warren's personal history shows that she has lied and embellished her own personal history for political and professional gain. Conservatives aren't claiming that this is a lie because it seems implausible, but because Sen. Warren's own record shows different stories. If they aren't in the tank for her already, then why won't mainstream media do the same?