HomeNewsBiden's close advisor goes nuts with F-bomb laced rant

Biden’s close advisor goes nuts with F-bomb laced rant


Related stories

The Biden campaign is losing its sanity. Its true colors are coming through.

Because Biden’s top close advisor just went nuts with this crazy F-bomb laced rant.

There’s one line you’re pretty much never supposed to cross in politics, and that’s admitting that you don’t care about the facts or objectivity. Sure, the major news outlets have been propagandizing, lying, and bending the truth for decades. It’s worse than ever before, in some ways.

Yet, to admit that you don’t care about the facts at all and you just want to lie to get what you want is not something to be proud of. Unfortunately, that’s where we’re at right now. Haters of Donald Trump are willing to do anything and say anything that could be damaging for Trump and his odds of winning re-election in 2024.

Just recently, New York Times editor Mara Gay went on MSNBC to admit that she wants Donald Trump to be under a gag order until the end of the election so that “voters” can be “protected.” She’s outright admitting she doesn’t care about his free speech or the facts. She just wants Donald Trump to suffer, period.

Another recent example comes from Democrat Party advisor, James Carville, who has been making the rounds with news outlet appearances. He went viral weeks ago when he lost his cool on video and was cursing at young voters who are leaving the Democrats in droves. *Warning: strong profanity is in the clip below*

Now he’s back at it saying that he doesn’t care about objectivity and told journalists that they need to abandon objectivity to help Joe Biden and the Democrats get over the line this election season.

James Carville Advocates for Media Bias Against Trump in Upcoming Election

Democratic strategist James Carville recently urged media outlets to adopt a biased approach in their coverage of former President Donald Trump to prevent his potential re-election. During an episode of the Politics War Room podcast, Carville challenged the conventional journalistic commitment to objectivity, particularly in light of what he perceives as the high stakes of the upcoming presidential election.

In May, Joe Kahn, the executive editor of The New York Times, emphasized the publication’s responsibility to report on matters of public interest rather than favoring narratives that benefit President Joe Biden and disadvantage Trump. Carville, however, argued against this stance, suggesting that the media should take a more active role in opposing Trump and his allies due to the significant implications for the nation.

“So this is the basic question,” Carville stated. “People say Trump is going to be the Republican nominee and we got to cover it, and Biden’s the Democratic nominee and we cover this. And if there’s something bad about Biden, of course, we’ve got to print it. But if something comes up that is, can’t say good about Trump but more favorable to him, like the Elie Honigs and the Fareed Zakarias of the world, that’s one way to look at it. We just tell the truth and let the people decide. Or, at times when the country is in great peril or the moral imperative is so significant, you don’t do that.”

Carville criticized Kahn’s assertion that The New York Times should maintain neutral coverage, arguing that the current political climate necessitates a departure from objectivity. “Now you have Joe Kahn, the new editor or publisher, whatever he is at The New York Times, saying, ‘We’re just going to cover this down the middle. We’re going to cover what it is.’ I don’t think that’s the role of the news media at a time when the entire Constitution is in peril,” Carville continued. “I don’t have anything against slanted coverage. I really don’t … I would have something against it at most other times in American history, but not right now. F*ck your objectivity. The real objectivity in this country right now is we’re either going to have a Constitution or we’re not.”

This sentiment comes amid reported tensions between The New York Times and the Biden administration over the newspaper’s coverage of the president. Politico noted that some Biden aides view the upcoming election as “an existential choice for the country” and have criticized the Times for its perceived impartiality.

Carville further expressed his frustration with media coverage that he believes fails to grasp the severity of the situation. “Everything else, from Hunter Biden’s gun application to Judge Merchan’s, I don’t know, $35 contribution to all of the bullsh*t that the professional center feels like they got to put out,” Carville said. “I can’t tell you that these are bad people. They’re extremely naive people who have no idea what’s at stake in this election. So I think we need slanted coverage, more slanted coverage and I think we got to recognize the threat that this guy and the MAGA, not just him, the entire MAGA movement, from Alito and Trump on down is a serious, clear and present danger to the existence of the Constitution in the United States. And I mean that.”

Despite Carville’s strong stance, his co-host Al Hunt, a seasoned journalist, disagreed with the call for “slanted” coverage. Hunt advocated for fair reporting without false equivalency, citing historical precedence for abandoning strict objectivity during critical times. “James, the only thing I would reject was the term ‘slanted.’ I think we need fair coverage and not false equivalency,” Hunt said. “And it was over 70 years ago that one of the greatest journalists in America, Wallace Carroll, later became Reston’s Deputy in The New York Times Washington Bureau and the publisher of the Winston-Salem Journal, said that it is a mistake for journalism to be imprisoned by objectivity. That was during the McCarthy era. It’s even more true today.”

Carville, however, remained firm in his belief that the current political climate demands a departure from traditional journalism norms. “Yeah, I guess, ‘slanted’ … I’ll stick with that. But this is not ‘but on the other hand’ coverage, alright? One is, kind of old guy’s probably lost a step against a career criminal who would end the Constitution. That’s not a fight you want to be down the middle on,” Carville concluded.

Carville’s error is in suggesting that being non-objective is the way forward for American media to “preserve democracy.” Even if he was right that Donald Trump is this giant threat to democracy (even though the vast majority of Americans are more concerned about the impact of a second Joe Biden term being more damaging for America’s future than a second Trump term), how in the world would throwing out the facts help? The facts, objectivity, and the truth is the only thing that can win.

Admitting you want non-objectivity just so you can win is admitting you want to live in a 1984-type world.

The Conservative Column will keep you updated on any major 2024 election news.


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments