One of the many illuminating things coming out of the Wikileaks release of John Podesta’s hacked emails… other than the absence any denial by anyone that the emails are fabricated… is the extent to which most of the media is firmly and unambiguously in the pocket of Hillary Clinton behind the scenes. Politico’s Glenn Thrush sent stories to John Podesta for pre-approval. John Harwood, a debate moderator, selected with the approval of Reince Priebus, boasted to Podesta about how he hurt Trump.

Now we can add another one to the list, Mark Leibovich of the New York Times. In this episode, Leibovich is doing a piece on the attempt by the Clinton campaign to “reintroduce” Hillary to America — as if we don’t know her already and need still more trauma. He sends his copy to campaign staff and asks is they have any problems with it. This, like Thrush, is not verifying quotes for accuracy. This is giving the campaign the opportunity to shape what is then presented to the public as news. And, to cap it off, Leibovich did this despite a New York Times policy forbidding this kind of collaboration with the subject of a story.

What this is doing is merely validating the view that many of us on the right have had about the news media for decades. They are not honest brokers. They are partisan tools who should be viewed as an extension of the Democrat party. Whatever shortcomings right-leaning media may have, it is at least clear to the reader the bias it carries. In this respect, Breitbart is much more impartial than either Politico or the New York Times.