The great thing about Twitter is how it has exposed most journalist hacks for the left-wing sycophants they really are. At Tuesday night's Democratic presidential primary debate, CNN moderators pressed Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren on whether or not her Medicare for All plan would raise taxes on America's middle class. It would, but she for some reason refuses to admit this.
However, New York University Journalism Professor Jay Rosen and Washington Post's media columnist Margaret Sullivan found fault not with the truth-dodging Sen. Warren, but with the moderators for asking her to clarify her position.
Here's a snippet from CNBC of the middle class tax interaction last night regarding her Medicare for All plan:
Warren has promised that Medicare for All would raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and lower costs for middle-class families.
“Costs will go up for the wealthy, for corporations,” she said at the debate. “But for middle-class families, it will go down.”
A moderator followed up: “You have not specified how you’re going to pay for the most expensive plan, Medicare for All. Will you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it? Yes or no?”
Warren again avoided a direct answer to that question, prompting a sharp response from South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
“I don’t think the American people are wrong when they say what they want is a choice,” said Buttigieg, who has put forward a plan that retains private insurers, which he labels “Medicare for All who want it.”
Buttigieg added: “I don’t understand why you believe the only way to deliver coverage for everybody is to obliterate private plans.”
But, Wednesday morning, Professor Rosen tweeted, "The 'make Elizabeth warren say she would raise taxes on the middle class' question should be a credibility killer. For the journalists who keep asking it."
The "make Elizabeth warren say she would raise taxes on the middle class" question should be a credibility killer. For the journalists who keep asking it.— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) October 16, 2019
Huh? It is a credibility killer for supposedly non-biased journalists to ask a presidential candidate how her plan would impact America's middle class?
WaPo's Sullivan quickly followed up with a link to her article today, which was titled, "Five ways the debate could have — and should have — been much, much better." Here is number 2 on that list:
2. Framing the (apparently unavoidable) question about universal health care and how to fund it in a non-gotcha way. Journalists are kindly doing President Trump’s work for him when they insist on trying to pin down Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), the new front-runner, to declare she’d raise taxes to fund Medicare-for-all. Of course, it’s legitimate to dig into the costs, but not in a way that creates a nice GOP campaign ad, and misses the larger lens of overall costs. (Warren, notably, refused to take the bait.)
Apparently, Rosen liked this point a lot.
I like the way you put it.— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) October 16, 2019
"Of course, it’s legitimate to dig into the costs, but not in a way that creates a nice GOP campaign ad, and misses the larger lens of overall costs. (Warren, notably, refused to take the bait.)"
The moderators simply asked a straight forward question. Warren refused to answer. Her colleagues on stage also called her out for avoiding the truth. If you are a journalist, the only way you would like Sullivan's point is if you are already in the tank for Warren and the rest of the 2020 Democrats.
Why won't they just admit their biases?