On September 7th we noticed that the scandal in the Democrat Party over illegal campaign donations was barely getting any coverage(1) in the print media and the internet. Well, apparently, TV news isn’t doing any better still. It’s so obvious, even the juggernaut of the left, The New York Times(2), has taken note of how few network news reports have aired on the Hsu scandal… though not making a big deal of it, naturally. The news media is doing their level best to deep six the story to benefit Hillary, it seems. If the Hsu fits, anyway. (Do I have to explain that his name is pronounced “Shoe” in Chinese for that joke to work? I sure hope not.)

Also in shocking move, in the Times’ story revealing Hillary Clinton’s decision to return an additional amount of Hsu’s contributions, some strong words were used to describe the fugitive—strong for the Times, anyway.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign announced last night that it would return about $850,000 to about 260 donors who had been recruited or tapped by Norman Hsu, the disgraced Clinton campaign fund-raiser who recently fled arrest and is now under investigation for his fund-raising practices.

Oooo! “Disgraced Clinton campaign fund-raiser,” they said. Kudos for calling a spade a spade for a change, Times!

In any case, this Times story does a fine job detailing the tawdry campaign illegalities, amazingly enough. But, even for my praise for the story, I have to say the last paragraph might go a ways to explain why they have so boldly laid out the details of this episode without running too much flack for their girl, Hillary.

(Bolded, my emphasis)

The Clinton campaign made its announcement around 6:40 p.m., shortly after the network news programs had begun on the East Coast. The timing was roughly the same Aug. 29, when Clinton advisers disclosed that they were giving Mr. Hsu’s $23,000 in personal donations to charity. Clinton aides, who have been trying to contain the damage from the case, have been monitoring the number of stories the evening news programs have run on Mr. Hsu — only a handful thus far.

Ah, there you see a hint, don’t you?

Do they feel they have the luxury to print a harsher story than they might otherwise because they know this story is not getting much traction in the media because they are all running flack for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign by keeping the story of “only a handful thus far?”

Just maybe.

1) barely getting any coverage

2) The New York Times