Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, recently presented incriminating evidence on the Biden family’s questionable financial dealings with China. Receiving far less attention, however, is the corruption within certain institutions that pretend to be nonpartisan but are, in fact, hypocritically biased.
A prime example of this is the Pulitzer Prize. Originally established over a century ago to award excellence in 22 categories, it now pushes leftist propaganda in journalism. As the New Criterion notes:
“It has long been recognized that there is a distinct political dimension to the awarding of the Pulitzer Prizes. Briefly stated, the Pulitzers favor the expression of liberal opinion. No other mode of political belief is considered eligible for Pulitzer consideration. It is thus the main business of the Pulitzer committees to hand out the Prizes to other liberals, both in the press and in the arts.”
The bias can be seen clearly in the awarding of the 2018 prize to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post for their report on what was proven to be a false story, the alleged Russian assistance to the Trump campaign. The myth, devised by the Clinton campaign, was decisively proven false after years of investigation costing the taxpayer millions of dollars.
Despite the fact that the story proved false, the prizes were not rescinded. What is worse, however, is that the outlets that exposed the explosive lie have been utterly ignored. The practice continued with the refusal to recognize the exceptional journalism by the New York Post, which has repeatedly exposed the original story and has continued to break news in massive scandals such as the Hunter Biden Laptop revelations.
Similarly, The overtly political bias of the Nobel Peace Prize could also be seen in its awarding of the coveted award to Barack Obama shortly after he took office. Since he had no accomplishments to point to, his own White House was embarrassed about the move. As JSTOR notes,
“…even the White House was lukewarm about the news. As communications scholar Robert Terrill writes, “The Obama administration found itself in the awkward position of trying to downplay one of the planet’s most high-profile awards…As Lynn Sweet noted dryly, ‘There was no celebration at the White House for the Nobel.’” Terrill goes on:
Throughout the campaign, Obama’s opponents had mocked him as an ‘international superstar with no accomplishments’and the awarding of the prize based on admittedly slim accomplishments seemed likely to invite similar assessments.”
In contrast, the Trump Administration’s exceptional and unprecedented advances in Mideast peace were totally ignored.
The Pulitzer organization is, of course, free to do whatever it sees fit. It is not beholden to the taxpayers and can exercise its political bias.
But it highlights a growing problem in the 21st century: the practice by organizations that pretend and advertise themselves to be “objective” and “unbiased” but are, in fact, instruments of one side of the political coin.
The American Council of Science and Health explains
“:..the objectivity of fact-checking websites has already been called into doubt …an in-depth analysis by…the Paradox Project revealed that PolitiFact … is biased in its fact-checking. [its] articles that debunk Republicans are longer than those that debunk Democrats. Why? Well, it comes down to a bit of chicanery: “We’ve found that PolitiFact often rates statements that are largely true but come from a GOP sources [sic] as ‘mostly false’ by focusing on sentence alterations, simple mis-statements, fact-checking the wrong fact, and even taking a statement, rewording it, and fact-checking the re-worded statement instead of the original quoted statement.”
Illustration: Pixabay