The morning Intelligencer
The issue is Obama's right to name a Supreme Court justice. The Republicans have said that they will not consider any nominee put forward by the President and here is this morning's AP story. The Intelligencer version, however, conveniently edits out the AP material that might help its readers to make a judgment on the matter. The material edited out is in bold:
The Kentucky Republican said he wouldn't even meet with an Obama selection should the White House follow tradition and send the nominee to Capitol Hill to visit senators. Such a snub could generate campaign-season television images of a scorned selection standing outside a closed door.
"I don't know the purpose of such a visit," McConnell said. "I would not be inclined to take one myself."
Obama is expected to announce a nomination in the next few weeks. Since the Senate started routinely referring presidential nominations to committees for action in 1955, every Supreme Court nominee not later withdrawn has received a Judiciary Committee hearing, according to the Senate Historical Office.
With the issue certain to roil this year's presidential and congressional elections . . . .
(Note -- check your morning "newspaper." I could not find their published version on their website.)
The evening News-Register
It's the same issue only this time the News-Register also cuts the opinion of Hilary Clinton out of a later AP story and, like the morning Intelligencer, drops the historical reference. Here's the original AP story and here's some of what the News-Register dropped in bold:
A few Republicans, including McConnell, said they would not even meet with the nominee when that person makes introductions on Capitol Hill.
“Why would I? We’ve made the decision,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a committee member.
In a statement, Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton said the Republicans’ refusal to consider any appointee is “shameful and indefensible.” She said it is offensive to Obama and the American people.
“It’s time for the Senate to put statesmanship over partisanship, and live up to our constitutional principles,” Clinton said.
In his post Wednesday, Obama tried to quell conservative concerns . . . .
The News-Register also dropped the same paragraph that the Intelligencer had dropped earlier in the day:
Since the Senate started routinely referring presidential nominations to committees for action in 1955, every Supreme Court nominee not later withdrawn has received a Judiciary Committee hearing, according to the Senate Historical Office.
In both cases, the AP simply states the most important argument made by those who support the President. Additionally, in the second case the AP gives some balance to an article which essentially outlines the Republican's point-of-view. Our "newspapers" want none of it -- their role, in this case, is not to inform the public so that they can make up their own mind but rather to propagandize for the Republicans.
What more can I write other than these are just two more examples of their lack of journalistic integrity and their total disdain for their audience.