If you want a first-hand look at how egregious media bias can be, look no further than Larry O’Connor’s excellent – and sickening – review, for the Washington Examiner, of how mainstream media dealt with President Trump’s speech about border security and the need for a wall.

Here is just a taste:

Within the first minute of Mr. Trump’s address, The Washington Post posted a political argument under the “Fact-Check” heading. Given that the post is time-stamped 9:02 p.m., the Post had to have been pre-written and published to time with the speech that had yet-to-be delivered.

“There is no new crisis at the border,” the “Live Fact Check” claimed. Politico issued a similar “not a crisis” “fact-check.”

Those are not fact-checks. The idea that an elected official is lying by calling a situation he is trying to resolve a “crisis” goes well beyond fact-checking and enters the realm of making a partisan political argument. Like other regurgitations of Democrat talking points, this is certainly a legitimate form of opinion journalism, but is not even remotely a dispassionate research project to verify facts.

Furthermore, the Post fact-check contradicted an article posted in their own publication just three days earlier, in which the Post’s own journalists described the border situation as a “humanitarian crisis.”

That sickening enough for you?  Discrediting enough for you?  Blatantly partisan enough for you?

Well, if not (or even if it is), I urge you to use the link and read all of Mr. O’Connor’s article.  There’s a ton more, just like it.

And these people wonder why fewer and fewer people trust them?


1 Comment

  • Ken, the day after the address I googled ‘Trump lies address’ I was sickened by the results. What do you do when the supposed ‘fact checkers’ are liars???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *