President Trump refused to give MSNBC’s reporter a question during yesterday’s press session with Benjamin Netanyahu, so MSNBC’s Peter Alexander complained on the air later that the conservative journalists the President did call on didn’t ask “real questions” like he would have. Of course, if anyone can find a single instance of Obama-bootlick MSNBC ever asking critical questions of President Obama, please pass it along. MSNBC’s coverage of Trump’s presidency began with dead-eyed Rachel Maddow intoning to her Angry Left audience that no, the election returns weren’t a nightmare, they were real. On Inauguration Day, Maddow compared Trump’s election to “Hitler’s rise.” Chris Matthews called the new President’s inaugural address “Hitlerian,” and compared his family to the Romanovs. Nice.
The tone hasn’t softened. Yesterday, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” announced that Kellyanne Conway was banned from the show. Conway is an embarrassing and untrustworthy shill, but similar conduct did not provoke any news organization from banning,say, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose penchant for Jumbos in defense of the Obama administration should have guraranteed employment with Ringling Bros.
CNN reporters were similarly indignant. “In the last three news conferences, Wolf, all of the questions to the American news media have been handled by conservative press, and I think, Wolf, there’s no other way to describe it but the fix is in,” said Jim Accosta. What he means is the mainstream media’s fix is being foiled, but never mind, Jim, stick to the battle plan. His network ran a report about a pure rumor that the President had used the services of a prostitutes during a trip to Moscow. Actions have consequences.
Over at ABC, Matthew Dowd made the legally incompetent argument that by not calling on the news organizations that have declared war on his Presidency, embraced fake news and Big Lies, Trump is “shutting down” the First Amendment. ABC permitting outright false and misleading claims like that from its pundits is reason enough to stick it in the “junk journalism” pile. ABC, CNN, MSNBC and the rest are as free as birds to continue broadcasting their slanted coverage designed to bolster the Left’s efforts to frighten and anger the public and undermine the elected President. But no Bill of Rights provision requires the government to support the myth that biased journalists are trustworthy.
The media’s coverage of the Flynn resignation was a disgrace for the mainstream media, a true orgy of bias and Trump paranoia. MSNBC’s Hardball guests Tim Weiner and Malcolm Nance equated the speculated ties between the Trump administration/campaign and Russia to “the most politically charged counterintelligence investigation since the Soviets stole the secret of the atomic bomb.”Nance opined,
“I think that this scandal is unique in all of American history. This would be the equivalent of the British, you know, running Abraham Lincoln or actually funding Jefferson Davis to take over the United States. This is — there has never been anything like this!”
Chris Matthews just nodded along. Even though this was an opinion (from guests he recruited to give it), a responsible host has an obligation to say, “I’m sorry, but that is a ridiculous and unfair comparison.” Matthews, back when he infuriated Democrats by occasionally being non-partisan, used to throw guests off his show for such fact-free slander.
NBC’s Chuck Todd, however, was in agreement with Chris’s guests. He compared General Flynn telling the Russian ambassador not to overreact to Obama’s sanctions to Iran-Contra. One of the New York Times stable of full-time Republican-bashers, Thomas Friedman, went even farther, if you can believe it: “We have never taken seriously from the very beginning Russia hacked our election,” he said on “Morning Joe” Tuesday. “That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event.”
MSNBC is a safe place for journalists to vent their bias and display its lobotomizing results. Pearl Harbor!
Meanwhile, in the World of Reason, blogger Ann Althouse, maintaining the objective observer’s distance, her specialty, posted the screen shot from the Washington Post website you see on the left (I would say, from my objective observer’s distance, that the Times is even worse), and writes,
Do you care? I see so many anti-Trump headlines. I feel as though I’ve already seen them all….What bothers me about the resistance — what deafens me to the protest — is that I actually believe in democracy. And I see a party that won an election and is now in power attempting to govern. I’m inclined to respect that, not resist it. The protests and resistance say: We don’t believe in democracy. How can you participate effectively in democracy while continually screaming that you don’t accept the results of an election?
Does anyone support Trump simply because he won the election?
(Somebody please tell Ann about Ethics Alarms.)
The mainstream news media has allied itself with “the resistance,” the un-American, anti-democracy, petulant and dangerous post-election strategy of the Democratic Party to assuage the anger of its hard-left base, which should really be angry at the Democratic Party. After eight years of spinning, defending, fawning and looking the other way for Barack Obama, after giving him the equivalent of The King’s Pass, journalists now feel that this President has a duty to assist them when they have all but announced the mission of destroying him. From the King’s Pass, it wants to transition to The Bum’s Rush, and pretend that this isn’t a double standard. That takes astounding arrogance and stupidity, but as we have been noting frequently of late, bias makes you stupid.
Let me explicate my “Good” in the headline. Of course it’s not good that the Trump administration will be facilitating the likes of the New York Post, the Washington Times and (yechhh) Breitbart as they question Trump with the same biased deference that Obama received from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN. Maybe, however, this turn of events will finally wake up responsible journalists, editors and leaders in the field–if there are any—that the ideological division of the news media that the mainstream media created with its refusal to be objective is disastrous.
It doesn’t serve truth, democracy, or the public interest. Nonetheless, if the mainstream news media wants respect, it has to start being respectable. If it wants to be trusted, it has to be trustworthy. It isn’t. It hasn’t been for decades, and there were no consequences at all. Neither is the conservative news media, but it won’t be fair and balanced until the other side is. Something has to make the Fourth Estate reform, and obviously guaranteeing it privileges that it abuses regularly won’t work.