If an adult chosen at random were asked to name the biggest story of the week, odds are low that he’d say a Muslim immigrant terrorist set off a bomb in a New York subway station in an attempt to kill unknown numbers of innocent people.
That’s because national news editors and TV producers decided that story wasn’t as important as a Republican’s election loss and endless commentary that imagined President Trump slut-shaming Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s words, not mine).
Example: After Roy Moore’s defeat in Alabama, the New York Times immediately ran four op-eds and an editorial on the race, which was covered as a national news story. After the terrorist attack, the paper ran just one editorial about it and its news coverage of the incident was relegated to the “New York region” pages.
Example: As of Friday, the last story the Washington Post reported that referenced Akayed Ullah, the terrorist, was Dec. 12, one day after the failed bombing and nothing since. But the paper published at least one about Moore as late as Thursday and one op-ed about him on Friday, three days after the race ended.
There’s one major difference between the immigrant terrorist story and the other two about Moore and Gillibrand: The media can’t make the immigrant terrorist story bad for the White House.