Wall Street Journal
The liberal media pounced immediately on the release of President Donald Trump’s outline for tax reform calling it “one big lie,” complaining about tax “cuts for the wealthy,” and saying the plan “stinks.”
Columnists and editorials spewed the most venom, but news reports were also biased and often turned to “an early analysis” from the liberal Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. However, since Trump had only announced a “framework,” The Wall Street Journal slammed them for “claiming to be clairvoyant” about the specifics and its “record of hostility to any GOP tax reform.”
Now we know that advertisers and the public are being supplied fake ratings by the same broadcasters who so often deliver fake news. A Thursday morning Wall Street Journal dispatch by Joe Flint reports that the broadcast networks routinely inflate their reported evening news audiences. They hide low-performing evening audiences by — get this — "forgetting how to spell."
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan used to write for CBS News, including the radio commentaries of Dan Rather, so she can speculate from an insider perspective. Her latest column insists “Dislike of Mr. Trump within the mainstream media is unalterable. It permeates every network, from intern to executive producer and CEO.” Like many on the right, Noonan has not been a big Trump fan, but she can see how dramatically the media is arrayed against the president. She has a unique theory -- the liberal media think their bias isn't only striking a blow for justice, but a smart business strategy.
If you believe that the news media's coverage of allegations involving President Donald Trump has been irresponsible and over-dramatized, you’re not alone. According to a new poll released by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, 50 percent of participants believe the media have favored people making allegations against the Republican occupant of the White House; 34 percent think the media have been responsible; and 12 percent say the media have been too restrained.
One of the more absurd spectacles in the press's coverage of the economy is the attack on the Trump White House's long-term economic growth assumptions in this week's budget release. The same reporters, pundits and outlets now ridiculing the Trump administration's belief that the economy can consistently grow by 3 percent each year beginning four years from now were stone silent when the Obama administration, whose alums have joined the current negative chorus, used far higher growth assumptions — and miserably failed to achieve them.
When it comes to "news" which might discredit Donald Trump or a member of his family, the modus operandi for too many in the press is, "Tweet and report first, ask questions later (if at all)." On Sunday, several media members couldn't resist falsely tweeting that Ivanka Trump will somehow control $100 million pledged by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to a World Bank fund for women entrepreneurs, thus dishonestly opening the door to utterly false parallels to the Clinton family-controlled Clinton Foundation.
Amidst the explosive New York Times story on Tuesday night about the supposed James Comey memo, MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews informed viewers that the two institutions he’s most entrusted his faith in during these tumultuous times are large, liberal newspapers and lefty bureaucrats in the mold of Sally Yates.
President Trump and I have something in common. We were both invited to last Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner and we declined. The president wasn't interested in hearing himself mocked by an industry that holds him to a different standard than his predecessor and I wasn't interested in hearing the predictable jokes denigrating all things Republican, conservative and Fox News.
On Friday (appearing in Saturday's print edition), the New York Times published its first column by Bret Stephens, the former Wall Street Journal columnist recently hired as a "conservative" voice. Its theme was that the political "hyperbole" about climate change doesn't match the underlying science — even if one trusts the underlying science. That alone was enough to send journalists into unhinged and often profane orbit.
A Sunday item in the San Francisco Chronicle covered what reporter Justin Phillips has found is a major challenge for that city's restaurateurs. You see, many of them are struggling with how much virtue-signaling is appropriate in the wake of the election of Donald Trump and that city's defiant insistence on remaining an illegal-immigrant sanctuary. In light of a recent Harvard study on the effect of higher-than-market minimum wages and dismal jobs data from the government, restaurateurs and the press which covers this industry and several others need to look harder at another far more important issue: how many of these establishments will be unable to remain in business.
The combination of losing the House, and then the Senate, and then the presidency (to Donald Trump, of all people), while losing over 900 other legislative and executive branch seats in states throughout the land, has apparently led Tom Perez, the Democratic Party's new chairman, to believe that the party must curse its way back into power to properly motivate the faithful. Knowing that such a strategy would be poison if widely known, the establishment press failed to report audible and visible evidence of this strategy for over two weeks.
This is the closest Brian Williams will ever get to having a Pulitzer Prize: talking about them. Wrapping up Tuesday’s The 11th Hour on MSNBC, Williams joked with a hint of seriousness on the day the Pulitzers were awarded that the Trump presidency is known as “the 2017 Full Employment Act for Journalists.”