Longtime Wall Street Journal opinion editor Paul Gigot defended an op-ed published over the weekend that drew the ire of many in the mainstream media by calling for the incoming first lady to drop her "doctor" title.
Wall Street Journal contributor Joseph Epstein’s piece, “Is There a Doctor in the White House? Not if You Need an M.D.,” argued that Dr. Jill Biden, who holds two master’s degrees and a doctorate in education from the University of Delaware, “should think about dropping the honorific, which feels fraudulent, even comic.”
The op-ed sent liberals into a tizzy, as everyone from the incoming second gentleman to Northwestern University – where Epstein was a lecturer of English – condemned the piece along with a plethora of liberal media members.
“Dr. Biden earned her degrees through hard work and pure grit. She is an inspiration to me, to her students, and to Americans across this country. This story would never have been written about a man,” Kamala Harris’ husband Doug Emhoff tweeted.
The New York Times and NBC’s “Today” scolded the piece, a Washington Post columnist declared the op-ed was “worse than you thought” and labeled Epstein a “weird, grumpy, elitist man.” CNN’s liberal in-house media pundit Brian Stelter chalked it up as “sexist,” far-left actress Debra Messing called it “a disgusting display of misogyny” and Michelle Obama even blasted the piece in a lengthy Instagram message.
RIC GRENELL CALLS OUT CNN'S JAKE TAPPER FOR BELATEDLY COVERING HUNTER BIDEN STORY
However, the WSJ’s opinion editor defended the piece, noting that Biden allies and staffers took to Twitter to label the piece “sexist,” “repugnant” and shameful while also demanding an apology.
“Why go to such lengths to highlight a single op-ed on a relatively minor issue? My guess is that the Biden team concluded it was a chance to use the big gun of identity politics to send a message to critics as it prepares to take power. There’s nothing like playing the race or gender card to stifle criticism. It’s the left’s version of Donald Trump’s ‘enemy of the people’ tweets,” Gigot wrote.
“The difference is that when Mr. Trump rants against the press, the press mobilizes in opposition. In this case, the Biden team was able to mobilize almost all of the press to join in denouncing Mr. Epstein and the Journal. Nearly every publication wrote about the Biden response, reinforcing the Biden-New York Times line: ‘An Opinion Writer Argued Jill Biden Should Drop the ‘Dr.’ (Few Were Swayed.),’” Gigot continued. “This strategy worked to protect Joe and Hunter Biden during the campaign, so it’s no surprise that they’re keeping it up as they head to the White House.”
Gigot feels the “outrage is overwrought” because Epstein’s point “applies to men and women and his piece also mocked men for their honorary degrees,” while the president-elect’s wife “can’t be off-limits” for commentary.
“These pages aren’t going to stop publishing provocative essays merely because they offend the new administration or the political censors in the media and academe. And since it’s a time to heal, we’ll give the Biden crowd a mulligan for their attacks on us,” Gigot wrote.
Meanwhile, Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney unearthed a 2015 study that provided a key example of the media’s hypocrisy on the subject. R Street, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public policy research organization, reported that Jill Biden was “more than three times more likely to be called ‘Dr.’ by The New York Times” than Dr. Ben Carson, who was the leading contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination at the time.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“It's all partisan BS by biased journalists, and if any of you pretend otherwise I don't know what to tell you,” Carney wrote. “Some of the people insisting you call her Doctor know they are full of crap. They are doing it because they want to set a dishonest trap in order to call you a misogynist.”