By Dave Andrusko
I had literally just read a column by Fox News’ Howard Kurtz, “Liberals denounce the media for not derailing Trump’s candidacy,” when the Washington Post posted a hit piece online about Donald Trump. Since it is off our issue, let me just say once again: there is nothing, nothing Big Media won’t do to elect pro-abortion Hillary Clinton.
For a number of reasons, the subject of Kurtz’s analysis was a topic I had meant to write on for the last week but never did. Fine, Kurtz does a terrific job.
So what does Kurtz mean by the headline?
The liberal media are freaking out over the possibility that Donald Trump might win the presidency.
They are denouncing their profession, decrying what they see as a press corps that coddles Trump and castigates Hillary Clinton, and demanding a change before it is too late.
Kurtz first counsels his brethren to take a deep breath and then devotes the rest of his column to “see if they have a credible case, or whether this is pure partisanship.” (I would say no, and yes.)
But what is beneath the alarums of the liberal (and virtually uniformly pro-abortion)media? They utterly disdain Trump, and if roughly half the country does not, then it must be a failure to bash Trump sufficiently hard.
However does anyone who is even marginally objective believe Trump has not been trashed, 24/7, by virtually every major news outlet–electronic and print (not to mention blogs), what Kurtz calls an “avalanche of negative coverage”?
To take just one example, the Washington Post considers it a lost day if they have not run at least one editorial, three op-eds (at a minimum), sundry “news analysis” pieces, and advocacy masking as news stories?
Kurtz poses in the form of a question what is behind all this (besides pure partisanship and a fervent desire to elect Clinton): arrogance on steroids:
Why do these pundits think they’re so much smarter than everyone else that they can clearly see Trump’s flaws but others are blinded by lousy media coverage?
Which is why over the last month you read so much in the prestige media about the bizarre, self-serving notion of “false equivalency.” It’s amazingly distant from reality but in general the false equivalency argument boils down to this.
“Liberals” have been so chasten by conservative criticism of overt bias they have overcompensated by holding Clinton to a higher standard than they held Trump. Indeed they have “bullied” Clinton and created a “false narrative.”
And have journalists really “created a narrative” about Clinton that has made people distrust her? Isn’t this a problem that has been building in the quarter-century since the days of Whitewater and cattle futures, since she testified before a grand jury as first lady? Doesn’t she bear some responsibility for a lack of skill at defusing damaging stories?
The answer? No.
Finally, ask yourself this. If Donald Trump’s doctor had diagnosed him as having pneumonia, he does not tell the media, he collapses at the 9/11 Memorial services, disappears for hours only to have a spokesman finally tell the truth hours later, what do you think the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and the like would have done to him?
There would be an avalanche of stories and editorials announcing that his lack of “transparency” (truth-telling) disqualified him to be President. Period, end of report. What is sauce for the gander is definitely not sauce for the goose.
Let me circle back to the beginning. The Post has had a gaggle of reporters looking for dirt on Trump for months and months and months. Today, six days before the first debate, suddenly the story is now “ripe” to be told?
These people are not only utterly shameless, they are far more dangerous than you could possibly imagine.