Media Bias, Leftist Intolerance vs. Trump Agenda
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoon
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoon
This gallery contains 6 photos.
Critical Thinking: Media Bias, Identity Politics, Mob Rule vs. Democracy Facts, Constitutional Republic Rush Limbaugh Media Bias against the Constitutional Republic “The subversion of democracy was the explicit intent of the framers.” Wait. What? “The subversion of democracy was the … Continue reading
This gallery contains 9 photos.
Science Facts: Study of Genetics Supports Biblical Worldview of Creation versus Evolution Theory; Media Bias Ignores There is a God. Evolution cannot explain Creation. A cat cannot build a hospital and never will. Nor can a dolphin. Humanity is exceptional. … Continue reading
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Comically Incorrect for his great cartoon
Truth in Journalism:
” [A] fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them. ~David O. McKay
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoons
Here are the facts — 13 truths the media do not want you to know about President Trump’s legal, humane, and moral handling of adults and children who enter our country illegally.
Trump’s “zero tolerance policy” is merely his administration treating all lawbreakers as lawbreakers, because the only other option is to let them loose into America with nothing but a court summons.
When an illegal alien crosses the border into the U.S., he is a lawbreaker, and, like any lawbreaker (including American citizens), he is put into the criminal justice system.
This is the law.
3The Left Wants Illegal Aliens to Enjoy Privileges Denied to American Citizens
If an American citizen breaks the law and is funneled into the justice system, he is separated from his family and children. This American citizen is not allowed to keep his family with him in a detention center.
Once again, our media want illegal aliens to enjoy special rights and privileges American citizens do not enjoy.
One more point…
These migrants are guilty of walking minor children through miles and miles of desert with the intent of committing a crime (crossing a border illegally).
If you or I walked a child through miles and miles of desert with the intent of committing a crime, child protective services would take our children away (and should).
4Asylum Seekers Not Breaking the Law are Not Being Separated9
If you cross the border illegally and claim asylum, you are still a lawbreaker. Regardless of your intent, crossing the border illegally automatically puts you in the criminal justice system, where you will obviously be separated from family.
These asylum seekers are choosing to break the law, are choosing to be separated from family.
5Trump Is Correct About the Loophole
In 1997, a consent decree called the Flores Settlement made it illegal for America to hold migrant children for longer than 20 days. Meaning, in order to keep the family together after 20 days of detention, we can either reunite the family by letting them loose to live illegally in America, or we can keep the parent in detention and place the child in a foster home or with a relative who lives in America.
6“Reuniting” Families Would Be a Disaster for Countless Children
Again, the only way to “keep a family together” is to allow illegals to pour into our country.
This policy would be a total disaster, especially for the children.
If word gets out that America automatically allows illegal border crossers with small children loose into America just because they have minor children, this would only further incentivize those who engage in the child abuse of dragging children along on the unbelievably dangerous trek across the border — or, even worse, both exploiting them for catch-and-release and then trafficking them after making it into the country.
No one who truly cares about these children wants to further incentivize that kind of abuse.
7 Obama and Democrats Incentivized This ‘Family Separation’
Until Obama came along, illegal border crossings primarily involved young, single men. Obama incentivized the idea of dragging minor children along on this dangerous journey (where many children are sexually assaulted) through his policy of “catch and release.”
Once word got out that illegals with small children would be let loose into America, the number of children crossing the border exploded.
8Barack Obama Separated Illegal Alien Families, Media Said Nothing
Under Obama, when illegal border crossers were put into the criminal justice system, families were indeed separated. Obama, of course, rarely prosecuted, even though the law calls for it.
9. IMPORTANT: The ONLY Way to Unite Families Is to Release Them into America
Obviously, we cannot have children living in adult detention centers. Obviously, we cannot have adults living in child detention centers. Therefore, the only way to “reunite” these families is to release these illegals into our country.
The media will not tell you this because the media do not want you to know that flooding America with non-citizens is their true agenda.
10Incentivizing the Act of Bringing Minor Children Across the Border Is Evil
The media do not want to inform Americans of one crucial fact: the dangers inherent in crossing the border from Mexico into America, most especially the dangers faced by minor children. Sadly, these dangers too often involve sexual abuse.
11Those Who Come to America Legally Face ‘Family Separation’
Many people who come to America legally from other countries are separated from family. A big part of America’s LEGAL immigration policy involves family separation when one or two family members come over before the rest are legally or financially able.
12“Family Reunification” Is an Invitation to Human Traffickers
Because of “catch and release,” because of this dumb and destructive loophole carved out for families, the number of illegal aliens using children to enter the U.S. increased by 315 percent between October 2017 and February 2018.
13. Media Do Not Give a **** About American Families Separated by Criminal Illegal Aliens
Illegal alien families are choosing to be separated by voluntarily engaging in lawbreaking. These illegal alien families, if they so choose, can stay together, simply by obeying the law.
Complete article here:
“It’s shameful that dems and the media exploited this photo of a little girl to push their agenda,” Sanders tweeted. “She was not separated from her mom. The separation here is from the facts.~Sarah Sanders
“It’s shameful that dems and the media exploited this photo of a little girl to push their agenda,” Sanders tweeted. “She was not separated from her mom. The separation here is from the facts. Dems should join POTUS and fix our broken immigration system.
For days, and without bothering to vet the photograph, the anti-Trump corporate media have deliberately tried to mislead the American people into believing President Trump’s separation policies were new (they are not), and that this crying child was separated from her family due to Trump’s refusal to release illegal immigrants into America (which is the ONLY way to “keep families together”).
This week, the hoax-photo was even used on the cover of Time magazine, a far-left outlet that has spread fake news in the past.
The truth is that this child was never separated from her mother, and that Trump is merely continuing a policy of separating children and adults in detention centers, a smart and humane policy that Barack Obama practiced, as did his predecessors.
As if it is not bad enough that the media fabricated a non-controversy out of thin air (no one cared when Obama practiced this perfectly reasonable policy), the media are also using hoax photographs, utterly false propaganda, as a means to do it with.
RUSH: Hey, folks, you want to talk about separating children from their parents? Does anybody remember the Waco invasion led by Attorney General Janet El Reno? That was her first massive attempt at separating children from their parents by killing them. David Koresh and his what they thought was an oddball religion housed in Waco, Texas. They literally had a military assault on the compound, and we watched it burn to the ground with women and children and men inside.
And then does anybody remember the name and saga of young Elian Gonzalez? Elian Gonzalez survived a rickety raft trip from Cuba to Florida. His mother did not. His mother drowned trying to save him. Elian was five or six.
They had relatives living in the Miami area, and they took the young boy in. After many months of the Clinton administration thinking that America was no place in this kid. His mother had left Cuba, risking her life and her son’s to get away from Castro and that nightmare of a country. She died. But Clinton and El Reno thought that the real home for that kid was back in “Cuber” with the child’s father, Juan Gonzales. So arguments ensued; the Clinton administration actually flew Juan Gonzales to Washington and to Florida.
Fidel Castro stumbled into one of the greatest propaganda opportunities of his dictatorship because here you had Bill Clinton and Janet El Reno parading Juan Gonzales all over American TV as a loving, doting father desperate to get his young son Elian Gonzalez back. Of course, the Clinton administration said, “A young man belongs with his father in a communist country,” and sent an armed federal agent into a rickety little house in Florida where the aunt and uncle… Her name was Marisleysis, if I recall. It could be the Gonzalezes. She was a relative of the mother.
And they were taking care of young Elian. Young Elian was happy. He was going to parks. He was having snow cones and running in the parks on swing sets and merry-go-rounds and stuff, and Janet El Reno grew tired of the fact that the family in Miami would not surrender young Elian to his father, Juan Gonzales. So they sent an armed federal agent! I mean, this guy was decked out with body armor, a helmet. He had leather gloves on his hands, a gigantic submachine gun-type looking weapon.
They stormed into that house and grabbed young Elian, grabbed him, took him out, put him on a little Learjet with Janet El Reno. They spirited him off, and eventually he ended up back in Cuba, where now he was described by Fidel Castro before he passed away as “a good worker,” and young Elian Gonzalez is now in his twenties and is a thoroughbred communist. But his mother took him away from Cuba and from his father — a separation, if you will — that was motivated by coming to America. The point is these things happen all the time, and yet the media is trying to make people believe that families being separated never happens.
9 May 2018
Kim Hak Song, Kim Dong Cul, and Kim Sang-Duk said, according to Reuters:
We would like to express our deep appreciation to the United States government, President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, and the people of the United States for bringing us home. We thank God, and all our families and friends who prayed for us and for our return. God Bless America, the greatest nation in the world.
Pompeo gave a briefing to reporters traveling with him on the trip back to the U.S. from North Korea. Asked if there were any glitches during the 13-hour stay, Pompeo said, “It was a long day. But there were no moments where I felt like we were going to be anything but successful in the day.”
Asked about what may have ultimately led Kim to release the prisoners, Pompeo replied, “I think that Chairman Kim is trying to set good conditions for the summit, right. I think we’re – I think we are having good conversations, productive conversations. And so I think the work that President Trump has done to put us in this place made this possible.”
Another reporter asked Pompeo what he said to the prisoners upon receiving them. Pompeo said, “I welcomed them back. Although we’re not quite back home yet, I welcomed them back. They were happy to be with us on this plane, to be sure.”
“We have the three Americans on the plane, which is incredibly exciting. They seem to be in good health. The doctors are with them now, but all indications are at this point that their health is as good as could be given that they’ve been held,” said Pompeo. “They all walked up the stairs themselves, with their own power, so good enough to do that.” He added that they should soon have a more complete readout of the three men’s health. The plane that the group later met up with in Japan was expected to have “more robust medical capabilities” to attend to the three.
The plane carrying Pompeo and the released prisoners landed in Alaska late Wednesday before continuing on to Washington, DC.
…’Arrested on vague charges of subversion, treated abominably’
by Edwin Mora
Marking the latest in a series of victories by the Trump administration in winning the release of Americans held abroad are the three U.S. citizens liberated this week by the murderous and oppressive North Korean regime.
Read more about the 14 Americans brought home:
1 Picture worth 1,000 words. Enjoy these cartoonists’ brilliant portrayals which pierce the smear campaign of convoluted media drivel. ~C.D.
History Pattern, Kangaroo Court. It is useful to note a timely history pattern from ancient Native American history: Condemning the righteous because of their righteousness; letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money; and moreover to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory of the world, and, moreover, that they might the more easily commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills—Helaman 7:5
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for another great cartoon
Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 and developed a strategy that convinced delegates not to break with Trump in favor of establishment candidates. Trump then appointed the veteran Republican strategist as chairman and chief strategist of his campaign.
Months later, Trump fired Manafort after learning his chairman received more than $12 million in undisclosed payments from former Ukrainian president Victor F. Yanukovych, who he spent years working for as a political consultant.
Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department in May to lead the investigation into Trump campaign officials’ relationships with Russian operatives. But the focus now actually may be turning to the Democrats.
President Trump contends the “real Russia story” is the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium assets to a Russian company under Clinton’s watch.
Critics also have pointed to Mueller’s relationship with fired FBI chief James Comey and the fact that he stacked his team of investigators with lawyers who had openly supported Hillary Clinton in the election. The Mail reported it was unclear if Mueller still has a strategy to “squeeze” Manafort” for information about the 2016 election “and Russian’s possible interference with it.”
The allegations concern actions that all predate the Trump campaign, and Trump’s name doesn’t appear in the 31-page indictment by Mueller, who in the document makes no allegations of collusion with Russia.
Truth in Journalism:
Hillsdale Imprimis Part 2:
The New York Post
As we know now, most of the media totally missed Trump’s appeal to millions upon millions of Americans. The prejudice against him blinded those news organizations to what was happening in the country. Even more incredibly, I believe the bias and hostility directed at Trump backfired. The feeling that the election was, in part, a referendum on the media, gave some voters an extra incentive to vote for Trump. A vote for him was a vote against the media and against Washington. Not incidentally, Trump used that sentiment to his advantage, often revving up his crowds with attacks on reporters. He still does.
If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered.
The Times’ previous reputation for having the highest standards was legitimate. Those standards were developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to gain public trust. The commitment to fairness made The New York Times the flagship of American journalism. But standards are like laws in the sense that they are designed to guide your behavior in good times and in bad. Consistent adherence to them was the source of the Times’ credibility. And eliminating them has made the paper less than ordinary. Its only standards now are double standards.
Alas, it was a different newspaper then. Abe Rosenthal was the editor in those days, and long before we’d ever heard the phrase “zero tolerance,” that’s what Abe practiced toward conflicts of interest and reporters’ opinions. He set the rules and everybody knew it.
Here is a true story about how Abe Rosenthal resolved a conflict of interest. A young woman was hired by the Times from one of the Philadelphia newspapers. But soon after she arrived in New York, a story broke in Philly that she had had a romantic affair with a political figure she had covered, and that she had accepted a fur coat and other expensive gifts from him. When he saw the story, Abe called the woman into his office and asked her if it were true. When she said yes, he told her to clean out her desk—that she was finished at the Times and would never work there again. As word spread through the newsroom, some reporters took the woman’s side and rushed in to tell Abe that firing her was too harsh. He listened for about 30 seconds, raised his hand for silence, and said (this is slightly bowdlerized): “I don’t care if you have a romantic affair with an elephant on your personal time, but then you can’t cover the circus for the paper.” Case closed. The conflict of interest policy was clear, absolute, and unforgettable.
As for reporters’ opinions, Abe had a similar approach. He didn’t want them in the news pages. And if you put them in, he took them out. They belonged in the opinion pages only, which were managed separately. Abe said he knew reporters tended to lean left and would find ways to sneak their views into the stories. So he saw his job as steering the paper slightly to the right. “That way,” he said, “the paper would end up in the middle.” He was well known for this attitude, which he summed up as “keeping the paper straight.” He even said he wanted his epitaph to read, “He kept the paper straight.” Like most people, I thought this was a joke. But after I related all this in a column last year, his widow contacted me and said it wasn’t a joke—that, in fact, Abe’s tombstone reads, “He kept the paper straight.” She sent me a picture to prove it. I published that picture of his tombstone alongside a column where I excoriated the Times for its election coverage. Sadly, the Times’ high standards were buried with Abe Rosenthal.
Which brings us to the crucial questions. Can the American media be fixed? And is there anything that we as individuals can do to make a difference? The short answer to the first question is, “No, it can’t be fixed.” The 2016 election was the media’s Humpty Dumpty moment. It fell off the wall, shattered into a million pieces, and can’t be put back together again. In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.
The mismatch between the mainstream media and the public’s sensibilities means there is a vast untapped market for news and views that are not now represented. To realize that potential, we only need three ingredients, and we already have them: first, free speech; second, capitalism and free markets; and the third ingredient is you, the consumers of news.
Free speech is under assault, most obviously on many college campuses, but also in the news media, which presents a conformist view to its audience and gets a politically segregated audience in return. Look at the letters section in The New York Times—virtually every reader who writes in agrees with the opinions of the paper. This isn’t a miracle; it’s a bubble. Liberals used to love to say, “I don’t agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death for your right to express it.” You don’t hear that anymore from the Left. Now they want to shut you up if you don’t agree. And they are having some success.
But there is a countervailing force. Look at what happened this winter when the Left organized boycotts of department stores that carried Ivanka Trump’s clothing and jewelry. Nordstrom folded like a cheap suit, but Trump’s supporters rallied on social media and Ivanka’s company had its best month ever. This is the model I have in mind for the media. It is similar to how FOX News got started. Rupert Murdoch thought there was an untapped market for a more fair and balanced news channel, and he recruited Roger Ailes to start it more than 20 years ago. Ailes found a niche market alright—half the country!
Incredible advances in technology are also on the side of free speech. The explosion of choices makes it almost impossible to silence all dissent and gain a monopoly, though certainly Facebook and Google are trying.
As for the necessity of preserving capitalism, look around the world. Nations without economic liberty usually have little or no dissent. That’s not a coincidence. In this, I’m reminded of an enduring image from the Occupy Wall Street movement. That movement was a pestilence, egged on by President Obama and others who view other people’s wealth as a crime against the common good. This attitude was on vivid display as the protesters held up their iPhones to demand the end of capitalism. As I wrote at the time, did they believe Steve Jobs made each and every Apple product one at a time in his garage? Did they not have a clue about how capital markets make life better for more people than any other system known to man? They had no clue. And neither do many government officials, who think they can kill the golden goose and still get golden eggs.
Which brings me to the third necessary ingredient in determining where we go from here. It’s you. I urge you to support the media you like. As the great writer and thinker Midge Decter once put it, “You have to join the side you’re on.” It’s no secret that newspapers and magazines are losing readers and money and shedding staff. Some of them are good newspapers. Some of them are good magazines. There are also many wonderful, thoughtful, small publications and websites that exist on a shoestring. Don’t let them die. Subscribe or contribute to those you enjoy. Give subscriptions to friends. Put your money where your heart and mind are. An expanded media landscape that better reflects the diversity of public preferences would, in time, help create a more level political and cultural arena.
Hillsdale Imprimis Part 1
The New York Post
I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.
It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species.
For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.
During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do.
Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.
The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.
I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics.
In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.
As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.
Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media’s tone grow more serious.
One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion.
The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers, and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that.
The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline “American Journalism Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.
The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction—toward Clinton and away from Trump.
For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.
On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds during the campaign.
But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it—George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And The Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.
But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:
If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him? [But it was A-OK for Obama to cozy up to anti-American dictators? ~C.D.]
I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that’s actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn’t cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn’t be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you’ve already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.
I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”
Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.
With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where, and why, he added the reporter’s opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper—all the tools that writers and editors have—were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.
Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.”
Indeed, the Times and The Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.