We live in a time of "fake news" awareness, so you'd think someone at the Los Angeles Times would know better than to publish a headline like this:  

"Just like her mother, Chelsea Clinton never gets a break"

Let's leave aside the reference to Hillary Clinton, who magically was able to turn $1,000 into $100,000 in cattle futures with no regulatory consequence and delete 30,000 evidentiary emails without prosecution.  Or a break.

Chelsea is being groomed for political power, and all the powers of modern propaganda are being mobilized to convince voters that she has some claim to leadership and popularity.

First, critics of her must be refuted, at least emotionally.  Portraying the world's most entitled woman as a victim must have seemed like a good idea at the time.  She's not just glamorous (and tougher than she looks); she's serious:

Thus we get Ann Friedman breaking out the world's smallest violin on the pages of the newspaper that continues to hide the tape of Rashid Khalidi being honored by his friend, Barack Obama.  Friedman is upset that some rascally conservatives are mocking Chelsea's latest meaningless award for achievements she hasn't achieved. But her first line of defense is odd:

When it comes to accepting prizes for charitable contributions, Chelsea is in no way an outlier. Everyone in her income bracket has a shelf full of honors.

Oh, so she's rich, which means we don't criticize her?  And how did she get so rich?  Never mind.  I am sure she is really earning her one-percenter income from Expedia.  So lay off poor Chelsea – she's just a working mom who doesn't get a break, just like all those other moms whose incomes provide for the necessities of their families.

Just like Ivanka Trump?

Ivanka Trump, for example – just picking someone at random here – is no stranger to vanity awards. She has been honored by organizations such as the European School of Economics and the Diamond Empowerment Fund's GOOD Awards. (Tagline: "Diamonds do good.")

But Chelsea, like her mother, never gets a break – unlike Ivanka and her father.

Did Friedman or her editors consider for even a moment the wisdom of claiming that Chelsea and Hillary get a harder time from the media than Donald and Ivanka Trump?

The campaign to foist Chelsea on the political system is leading propagandists to damage themselves.  It is a curious phenomenon.