And, of course, a “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” masterpiece.
Here is the headline:
To be fair, the writer of the piece, apparently insane Post reporter Philip Bump, focuses on the President’s statement that the top twenty most dangerous cities are run by Democrats. Gotcha! Bump triumphantly produces this stunning graph to prove that, once again, Trump has lied, the bastard:
Ah HA! See???
Bump writes, just ahead of the arrival of the men in the white coats to take him to his new home, “Trump would no doubt shrug at that detail, decrying as “fake news” the revelation that his assertion was only slightly wrong.” Then Bump spends the rest of his scoop trying to rationalize why big cities tend to be Democrat-dominated.
Nonetheless, if Trump called the headline fake news, he’d be 100% right: the headline doesn’t say anything about “top 20,” it says “most dangerous.” The top ten most dangerous cities are all run by Democrats. And if Bump thinks a single Republican mayor out of the top 20 is a rebuttal of Trump’s point worth a feature…well, I hope he likes basket-weaving.
Was Bump assigned this hopeless cause? Is he in the final throes of crippling Trump Derangement Syndrome? If you are going to call the President of the United States a liar, aren’t you ethically obligated to have more than nit-picking as support for that assertion? It may be worthy of a treatise to examine why urban dwellers keep electing Democrats even though they appear to be incapable of keeping their citizens safe from violent crime, but the fact that Democratic mayors fail and the reasons their constituencies keep voting for them are two different issues. Baltimore’s black voters have elected one crooked and incompetent Democratic mayor after another. They could have elected Republicans; they chose not to. Bill De Blasio is a spectacular failure whose policies have caused an increase in crime and recently resulted in a surge in murders, all after two Republican mayors had kept crime down. Explaining why voters in a city would be so foolish and irresponsible as to elect someone like De Blasio–twice!—doesn’t excuse him from rank incompetence and ideological madness.
What this episode demonstrates, and all it demonstrates, is that the Washington Post has lost all credibility and rationality in reporting on President Trump’s words and actions. The Post is so biased against the President that it decides to criticize in print automatically, and then figures out what the basis of the criticism will be. In this instance, it couldn’t come up with a valid reason for its attack, and went ahead anyway. The story had special appeal because it gave the Post a chance to advocate for its client, the Democratic Party. Now, a responsible and objective newspaper would approach this issue by starting with the President’s assertion and stating, “The President has facts on his side. Why can’t Democrats control urban crime? Why do cities keep electing them”?
The Post isn’t an objective and rational paper, however. It’s an anti-Trump, Democratic Party-promoting rag. If it weren’t, Bump’s trash would have never made it to print.
You know, every day I read the biased coverage in the New York Times, and wonder, “Wait, why am I paying $80 a month for this rag instead of my local paper?”
Then the Post does something like this, and I remember.