How does Watergate differ from Obamagate? Journalists led the charge to uncover the first. But now? Now journalists are leading the coverup of the second. Over there at Real Clear Investigations, J. Peder Zane has illustrated the media coverup exactly. A sample from Zane:
President Trump performed some confusing speculation on the efficacy of ultraviolet light and disinfectants during his coronavirus briefing Thursday, and as usual, the New York Times overstated the facts to push its anti-Trump agenda. Saturday’s front-page story appeared under the distorted headline, “Science Fires Back Loudly on Trump’s Cure-All.” "Cure-All"? Another article falsely blamed him for the death of a man who ingested fish tank cleaner.
Once upon a time — in a galaxy far, far away — The New York Times and The Washington Post were the go-to papers when it came to uncovering political scandals. Both papers made a point of running the Pentagon Papers, an internal and secret U.S. government history of various presidents and their relevant Cabinet secretaries decision-making on American involvement in the Vietnam War. The Post, of course, was also famous for its birddogging young reporters Woodward and Bernstein and their digging out the details of the Watergate scandal.
David Leonhardt's Friday New York Times column about President Donald Trump's reactions to the Inspector General's report on the FBI's and Department of Justice's pre-2016 general election actions is treating it as a blanket exoneration. Therefore, everything Presidential Donald Trump has said about it is a lie.
Since Donald Trump's election, America's late-night show hosts have abandoned genuine comedy in favor of rabid, anti-Trump resistance. That's certainly their perogative. But if that's how they want it, they should be called out when they attempt to rewrite history as Stephen Colbert did Tuesday night. The Late Show host claimed that the now-nixed Iran deal was an "American promise," and a "treaty." It was obviously neither.
At CNN, it's not unusual to see one conservative or center-right guest in a panel discussion stacked with leftists, including the host. That's bad enough, but there has clearly been an increase in the number of times the lone conservative or center-right guest also ends up on the receiving end of rude, abusive treatment one would never see directed at other panelists. Such was the case Thursday evening, when conservative talk radio host and CNN political commentator Ben Ferguson was shouted down and cut off by host Don Lemon.
There's a lot of competition for this dubious distinction, but the media's treatment of President Donald Trump's decision to end certain Obamacare subsidy payments to insurance companies is perhaps the most blatant example of comprehensive bias on a single topic seen during the past week. Apparently, the press realizes that acknowledging how Trump's justification for ending the subsidies is airtight on a legal and constitutional basis would force them to admit that the Obama administration's payment of those subsidies for several years was illegal — and we can't have that. The worst offender in this regard was the Associated Press.
In remarks so bizarre and out of touch that satirists at outlets like The Onion would have rejected them if someone had suggested their inclusion in a made-up story, London's police chief has described the diversity of the city's London Bridge terror attack victims and witnesses interviewed as positive things. Gregory Katz at the Associated Press did his part to play along with the charade by failing to identify the lack of diversity among those who carried out the attack.
Recent NewsBusters posts have shown how the hysterical establishment press wants the American people, against all factual evidence, to believe that President Donald Trump obstructed justice in his conversations with James Comey. Former federal prosecutor and prolific national security columnist Andrew McCarthy, in Wednesday and Thursday appearances on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show, made several argument-ending points on that issue, and also essentially alleged that the former FBI director has engaged in serious and arguably illegal misconduct.
Never let it be said that the folks at the Associated Press aren't on top of the news, making sure that readers as well as subscribers who use AP copy in their radio and TV broadcasts learn the most important developments of the day.
That's sarcasm, folks. Friday evening, in a story primarily about the FBI's grant of immunity to longtime Hillary Clinton assistant Cheryl Mills, the AP's Michael Biesecker blandly informed readers — in Paragraph 22 of 25 — that, in regards to her illegal and improperly secured private server, "The new FBI documents (released Friday) also reveal that Clinton occasionally exchanged messages with President Barack Obama, who used a pseudonymous email address." That's it. Nothing unusual here. Now move along.
Early Saturday morning, while covering the upcoming Nevada Democratic Party caucuses, co-host Mika Brzezinski claimed on MSNBC's Morning Joe show that a "print reporter" has "actual transcripts" of certain of Hillary Clinton's paid speeches to financial firms.
This naturally leads to the question of whether we'll ever actually see the words Mrs. Clinton spoke which typically "earned" her roughly $250,000 for a 40-minute talk — an amount which even a New York Times reporter has acknowledged seems "almost obscene."
The Washington Post's Erik Wemple and certain "I walked through Bedford Stuy alone" reporters are contending that, in Wemple's words, "the term 'no-go zone' is best left in retirement." No sir, it needs to be defined appropriately, then used when appropriate.
Avoiding use of the term enables a dangerous detachment from reality. There is already quite a surplus of that. Patrick J. McDonnell at the Los Angeles Times, who seems to believe that he proved something by visiting the jihadi-infested neighborhood of Molenbeek and getting out alive, demonstrated how out of touch he is by referring on Monday — three days after the Paris terror attacks and at least two days after the parties involved and their backgrounds were firmly established — to "the so-called Belgian connection in the Paris attacks." Holy moly, Patrick. What about Molenbeek being "home to two" of the Paris attack terrorists who died during their attacks and to the plots' mastermind, Salah Abdeslam, do you not comprehend?