Wall Street Journal
The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal called on Thursday, October 26, for Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Counsel Robert Mueller to step down from his role in investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. “It is no slur against Mr. Mueller’s integrity to say that he lacks the 'critical distance' to conduct a credible probe of the bureau he ran for a dozen years,” the Journal’s editorial board wrote. “He could best serve the country by resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest.”
The mainstream media has recently gotten all excited over the discovery that the Russians purchased $100,000 worth of Facebook ads during the 2016 election season. Of course, almost any rational observer would realize that $100,000 is mere chump change in the grand scheme of things during a campaign in which many millions were spent on ads and commercials.
One person who made a very detailed analysis as to the absurdity of the Russians influencing the U.S. election via those Facebook ads is quite surprising considering his background. It is former 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign chief stragegist Mark Penn who in the October 15 Wall Street Journal mocked the notion of Russian influence via Facebook ads in You Can’t Buy the Presidency for $100,000:
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.”
The Twitter website has become the go-to place for people in the “mainstream media” who have said things they wish they hadn’t stated on television. They can then apologize in a format that far fewer individuals will notice. A perfect example of this principle took place on Tuesday, August 22, by Bret Stephens, a right-of-center columnist for the New York Times who was also hired by NBC News and MSNBC on Wednesday, June 28.
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.