Conservative journalism is breaking out in dimensions which old timey newspaper types would have never imagined.
The technology revolution, which allows Joe Nobody to be Deep Throat, Bob Woodward, and William Randolph Heart to throw off every Establishment block against reporting, revelation, and discovery.
That said, there are challenges which face New Journalists, such as a bias which misleads readers among conservatives, as much as the "mainstream media" has mislead mainstream readers for years.
One example of this, I fear, has popped from one journalist on Breitbart: Matthew Boyle.
For the past three months, Boyle has been reporting negative press against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Recent posts hinted at a private meeting with New Hampshire Republicans, in which Walker appeared to endorse a pathway to citizenship, despite repeatedly public affirmations against amnesty.
The article drew from anonymous sources in an article from the Wall Street Journal, with no vetting or corroboration.
Since then, Matthew Boyle, previously writing for the Daily Caller, and a staunch supporter of the Conservative Cause, wrote a warmer article on behalf of Walker:
Scott Walker Stands Up for American Workers Against Illegal Immigrants on ‘Hannity’
With all due respect, Walker was standing up for American workers since his tenure as chief executive of Milwaukee County, were he cut his own pay and rooted out serious corruption, then governed without raising taxes.
He also pushed back against greedy public sector unions, allowed individual employees to choose whether to join a union, and allowed homeowners and parents to keep their money and choose where to enroll their kids.
He has been putting up a strong and consistent fight for working Wisconsinites. What makes anyone believes he wouldn't push back for all Americans? He has made his case frequently to voters throughout the country, and he received a rock-star welcome at CPAC 2013.
Now, in light of the new reporting developments from Boyle, I found the following post on his Facebook Page:
What was the Scott Walker problem that Joe Dunn is talking about?
For the past few months, I had perceived a strong bias against Gov. Walker in Breitbart, particularly from columnist Mathew Boyle. Did certain conservative writers and activists view Walker as a serious threat to the more libertarian, populist candidates like US Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz?
For the record, I am big fans of both US Senators, and would vote for both without hesitation if they won the 2016 GOP Presidential nomination. Walker has a better record on actions and results, as well as rhetoric, and he is the best choice for me.
So, what is Boyle's Scott Walker problem? Was it a perception that he was Jeb Bush in disguise, willing to bend to GOP Establishment, Corporate, and Big Government bidding in order to secure funding then the nomination?
Let's not forget that Walker has offered criticism specifically toward the resumes of prospective candidates, without naming names directly. That's the way it should be. As for President Obama, he has directly attacked Walker, and no one else (yet) in the field.
Apparently, the Democratic Party has made up its mind, at least in the mind of its current leader Barack.
Another item from the Facebook page revealed the following:
For now, I will leave this two Facebook screenshots for viewers to consider on their own.
I applaud the New Media in all of its media, including the journalists who ask tough questions to both GOP and Dem, but journalists should find a way to suspend their presidential preferences, or at least state them openly before writing hit pieces against any one potential candidate.
Another idea: perhaps the Scott Walker problem is simply Boyle smoothing out his writing, and giving every candidate a fair shot, and opportunities to shine.
If that's the case, then the Scott Walker problem, for better or for worse, is looking like not much of a problem any more, after all.
By the way, has Boyle written any articles grilling US Senator Paul about his "undocumented citizens" remarks (Paul's views on immigration have evolved considerably and more quickly), or his measured distance from Voted ID? As for Ted Cruz, he is a great speaker, and no one can question where he stands on issues.
But what has Cruz done compared to Walker? Will Boyle write that column soon?
Or does Boyle still have a "Scott Walker Problem?"