I QUESTION THE PREMISE OF THIS HEADLINE: Hillary’s media is torching its standards to cover the election, Michael Goodwin writes in the New York Post.

Considering that we read earlier drafts of this same article in October of 2008 by then-ABC/PJM contributor Michael Malone and immediately after the 2004 election by then-Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman, what standards are left?

Former CBS journalist Sharyl Attkisson writes that until her debacle on the 15th anniversary of 9/11 (and fourth anniversary of Benghazi), Hillary’s health (or the lack thereof) “was ‘the stuff of conspiracy theorists’ until the reporters who appear to have been proven wrong, decided it was not. It’s almost as if we in the media take an editorial position with no factual basis, dare critics to prove us wrong, and then when events do, we modify our stance.”

Exactly. Or as Ann Althouse noted last month, “The media feel like lawyers for the Clinton campaign, taking whatever the evidence is and presenting it as advantageous to their client.”

It all makes sense when you think of them as Democrat operatives with bylines—and hopefully hazmat suits as well, when they’re flying with Hillary these days. Perhaps we should set up some sort of quarantine ward stat for these potential asymptomatic pneumonia carriers: