Wellness Check on Leftists After the NY Times Does the Unthinkable in Finally Fact Checking Joe Biden

By Sister Toldjah | RedState.com

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

As my RedState colleagues and I have documented many times at this site, professional fact-checkers simply stink - not because they are charged with fact-checking but because so many of them are in the tank for Democrats. As a result, they tailor their purported "fact checks" accordingly, which means the "fact check" is... not really a fact check at all.

Like their media allies, fact-check organizations - despite their laughable spin to the contrary - have established themselves for the past couple of decades as little more than mouthpieces/apologists for leftists and leftist causes, with the examples too numerous to list here, though we'll point out a couple of them for good measure.

Fact-checkers have so often gone to bat for Democrats over the years that it's become expected of them in Democratic circles, as natural as breathing.  In fact, it's so rare that fact-checkers hold a Democrat's feet to the fire that when they do, conservatives take notice if for no other reason than to express their pleasant surprise to see it happening for a change.

As one might imagine, though, sometimes those once-a-year fact checks of Democrats coming from the mainstream media and their hired "truth seekers" can cause panic, with some on the left needing some smelling salts and access to fainting couches in order to make it through the day.

Such was the case this week after the New York Times did the unthinkable in fact-checking Joe Biden, noting that "At recent public and campaign events... Mr. Biden has made some misleading statements about the economy, jobs and taxes."

Though it was about as harsh on Biden as one would expect coming from the liberally biased Snoozepaper of record (read: not at all), it was simply too much for the likes of Claire McCaskill, the former Democratic Senator from Missouri who is known for her occasional bizarre and non-sensical rants, which makes her a perfect fit in her role as political analyst at MSDNC MSNBC.

On the Thursday "Morning Joe" episode, McCaskill whined to co-hosts Joe Scarborough and his side-kick Mika Brzezinski about the Times daring to do what had so rarely been done before in fact-checking Biden. Further, she demanded the paper stop fact-checking him at all until they had also fact-checked Biden's presumptive general election GOP opponent, Donald Trump:

MCCASKILL: So the only blemish on the great country of America worldwide is, in fact, Donald Trump and can I make a suggestion? I move that every newspaper in America quits doing any fact-checks on Joe Biden until they fact-check Donald Trump every morning on the front page. It is ridiculous--

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.

MCCASKILL: --that the New York Times fact-checked Joe Biden on something. I mean, he vomits lies, Trump vomits lies. Every day—

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Literally.

MCCASKILL: over and over and over again and it’s just ridiculous that the New York Times is doing a fact-check on Biden while they let Trump -- while they're numb to the torrent of lies coming out of Trump's mouth.

 Not mentioned in the Brzezinski/McCaskill anti-Times/Trump hatefest was Brzezinski's (and Scarborough's) extensive role in elevating Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, but I digress.

As it turns out, McCaskill wasn't the only one acting fauxfended over the Times' recent coverage of Joe Biden, as pointed out by 538 site founder Nate Silver in an "X" (formerly Twitter) post.

Leaving aside the fact that the Times is all over Trump on any given day (contra to claims from the Biden admin), I'd say that as bad of a look that it was for McCaskill and Oates to be crying foul over the rare instance of the Gray Lady throwing some mild criticism Biden's way, it's an even worse indictment of the MSM and their fact-checking arms. 

Why? Because McCaskill and Oates essentially said the quiet part out loud-- by inadvertently making the exact points conservative critics have long argued about the media's biased, one-sided, political agenda-driven nature.

Thanks much, Claire.