One can safely add Yahoo! and the Los Angeles Times to the massive list of media organs that are ethically estopped from calling Donald Trump a habitual liar, since they habitually lie about him.
The most recent example comes from the Times uncritically and deceptively reporting on a series of hyper-partisan, hysterical rants by LGTBQ+ Democrats in San Francisco (well, its San Francisco). Yahoo! then circulated the propaganda under its own banner online. Like the good little Axis of Unethical Conduct members they are, the LA Times and Yahoo! dutifully reported pure Trump Derangement fiction as news, and it was biased, dishonest, unethical journalism from the headline to the finish.
Which, ironically, is not news either. This is how the news media has been operating where Trump is involved for ten years. This is how it plans on winning the Presidency for the Democrats again.
The headline is “‘Our lives are on the line’: Why many LGBTQ+ people hope for a Harris win.” Not one LGBTQ+ American’s “life is on the line” in this election by any stretch of the imagination. Trump does not oppose gay rights or same sex marriage. He has made it clear that he believes in treating such citizens as anyone else should be treated. Believing, as most conservatives, Republicans and people who haven’t been brainwashed or bullied do, that LGBTQ+ lifestyle propaganda does not belong in public school classes does not endanger LGBTQ+ rights or lives.
But the Times (and then Yahoo!) lied, because that’s what progressive journalism does now. It begins,
“At a recent celebration of San Francisco’s vibrant transgender past, one speaker after another directed the crowd’s attention to a worrisome future, casting November’s presidential election as a turning point for the LGBTQ+ community and the nation as a whole.”
What’s a “vibrant transgender past”? That’s not journalism, that’s hype, and a competent editor would red-pencil it. The fact that a group of hard-core, leftist activists see a “worrisome” future doesn’t make it ethical for the Times to report that assessment as fact. “Directed the crowd’s attention to what they believe is a worrisome future” is reporting, journalism. The way the Times stated it is advocacy.
“This election will determine our fate,” said Sofía Sabina Ríos Dorantes, deputy director of El/La Para TransLatinas, a local advocacy organization. “It will determine whether we continue to face discrimination and marginalization at [a] disproportionate rate, or whether we can continue walking toward the recognition and respect we deserve.”
There is literally no basis for any of that claim, and a news outlet is obligated to say so. How will this election do any of that? There is less discrimination against gays and same sex couples now than at any time in our history. Trump doesn’t mention gay rights and gay marriage. The sole matters of contention that do occupy the attention of conservatives are 1) the strange, anti-female obsession of parts of the radical Left with allowing trans athletes to compete against girls and women in sports where size and strength is an advantage, and 2) the fad of imposing “gender-affirming care” on minors who have become confused about their gender identity in the midst of an indoctrination campaign. Opposing the first is not advocating “discrimination and marginalization,” just fairness and common sense. Opposing the second is expressing legitimate concern for the health of children whose lives are at risk of being distorted by politics.
If the Times were interested in journalism rather than allying with activists, it would not use the intentionally deceptive cover-phrase “gender affirming care” to mean “giving children puberty blockers, steroids and irreversible unnecessary surgical procedures because they have been convinced that they are the ‘wrong’ sex.”
Trump’s decision to ban transsexuals from military service is the only substantive policy that LGBTQ+ can point to as having an arguably adverse effect on a small component of their group’s rights. How many people are we talking about here? Since the only purpose of the military is national defense, the determination that including this tiny, inherently confusing and arguably emotionally disturbed minority in our armed forces is unwise is hardly constitutes an existential threat to the entire LGBTQ+ community or their rights.
The lying is flagrant: The Times hops on the contrived “Project 25” hysteria, but gets truly deceptive in its links. “Dangerous” links to a story about Republicans opposing the extreme trans agenda. How is disagreement over allowing children to decide to be permanently altered “dangerous” to the LGBTQ community? (Any dissent from leftist cant is “dangerous.” I get it.)
I checked the last two links in this paragraph:
“In three months, Americans will choose between Vice President Kamala Harris, who is a Bay Area native and longtime LGBTQ+ ally, and former President Trump, who has a long record of attacking queer rights and has aligned himself with some of the nation’s most virulently anti-LGBTQ+ political groups.”
Trump’s “record” of attacking LGBTQ rights linked to a story about Trump criticizing Biden’s obnoxious decision to salute the (already absurd) “Transgender Day of Visibility” on Easter. There is no “right” to have your group recognized by the President on Easter. And, as in the rest of the Times hit piece, by “LGBTQ” the Times only meant the “T.” Solidarity is admirable, but lying and deceit are not. Challenging an extreme trans agenda does not threaten LGBTQ rights. It is the illogical equivalent of claiming that the extreme pit bull breed bans in many cities “endanger all dogs.”
“Aligned himself‘ is worse. Trump has accepted the endorsement of religious groups and evangelicals who follow moral imperatives in their faiths that gays don’t like—-as if the Democrats wouldn’t love to have the endorsements of any of these groups. Accepting the endorsement of a group does not mean a candidate accepts all the positions of that group, and the Times knows that. Nonetheless, it intentionally deceives its readers because its Axis allies do.
This is how the mainstream media is attempting to rig the election—well, one of many ways.
Ethics Alarms 
“Accepting the endorsement of a group does not mean a candidate accepts all the positions of that group.”
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Political observation of the era!
Per the left, if you’re not virulently opposed to even the existence of people of faith, you are completely in favor of all of the most radical beliefs of their most conservative elements.
If you don’t call out any politician who has a southern accent, you’re a George Wallace white supremacist.
It’s their way of sorting anyone who does not buy the complete progressive agenda into simply an opponent who must be obliterated. They give absolutely no quarter.
I think I need to look into the psychology behind “guilty by association,” as it seems to have fairly powerful influence. We have to force ourselves to remember that association does not mean agreement on all counts. Being more nuanced, though, we do have to admit that associating with someone opens the avenue for potential influence. There is the possibility that a candidate who is endorsed by group A will therefore work harder to implement A’s agenda, lest he lose the endorsement. But it would be far more vital to dig deeper and determine what it is about the candidate’s stance on issues that attracts group A to endorse him in the first place.
In this case, most religious groups look at Trump with personal abhorrence, but they give him their endorsement because he at least fights for things those religious groups care about, whereas the Left only acknowledges those issues long enough to take a steaming dump on them. The Left still has under its umbrella a number of causes that they could promote hard to attract the religious organizations, and they could tone down many of these fringe — though very outspoken — interests. That all or nothing approach is going to eventually alienate enough people that the Left will fall apart. The only question is how long that is going to take, and whether they can wise up and reverse course before then.
Ryan, if I’m not mistaken, not too long ago, maybe before Obama, politics used to be called “the art of the possible,” or something like that. Not anymore. The left now stakes out the most preposterous policies and insists that nothing short of total success is acceptable. It’s probably an Alinsky tenet. Compromise, historically the life blood of politics, is now considered failure and anathema. I think they project this onto conservatives.
Jack wrote, “This is how the mainstream media is attempting to rig the election—well, one of many ways.”
I completely agree with Jack’s statement. These propagandists are morally bankrupt bald-faced LIARS and they will say anything to further undermine public perception of Donald Trump – to these people the ends truly do justify the means. I really don’t think they give a damn if they destroy the United States of America as long as it destroys Donald Trump, they really are that obsessed. They will destroy all the freedoms we have in their effort to destroy that which they hate, it’s lunacy.
One of the most ridiculous things I’ve seen today is David Hogg on X putting up a quote by Trump saying he has ‘Elon Musk’s ‘full-throated approval’ as candidate. Hogg assumes it’s a sexual phrase and declares Trump unfit for office. Reddit is going nuts, with a lot of ‘Ewww’ responses. Has knowledge of the English language sunk so low?
I hear that once Trump is elected the now defunct island prison of Alcatraz will be reactivated so all the LGBTQ+ can be incarcerated there.
The loyal Democrats here are all conviced that if Trump is elected, they will all be converted to Axolotyl tanks. I don’t know where this came from, but they are all insistent on it to the part of mania.
Aren’t the “sky is falling” or “this is the most important election ever – your very existence depends on defeating >>>” fairly common rallying cries to the cause du joir? I mean, if the Alphabet Soup Lobby said, “yeah, we have ___ bur realistically, she/he won’t have much of an impact on our lives” lead most donors and activists to move to other causes?
jvb