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?