One can’t possibly illustrate the pervasive corruption of the mainstream media in the little space afforded by a blog such as this. But a Washington Post article published on June 1, 2022, would seem a perfect example of the sort of one-sided, disingenuous double-speak that characterizes much of the mainstream news.
Written by one Philip Bump, the article is entitled “A brief history of failed efforts to make Trump the Russia probe’s victim.” Its target is Trump’s repeated claim that the investigation into his so-called Russian collusion in seeking to defeat Hillary in 2016 was based not on any substantial evidence but rather on the Democratic Party’s unethical use of the nation’s intelligence apparatus for purely political reasons.
In his 5th paragraph Bump generously concedes that there are two things that need to be granted at the outset. The first is that “the investigation into Russian interference and possible overlap with Trump’s campaign suffered from flaws and errors.” But rather than delving into any of those issues, he immediately dismisses them by asserting that any such massive investigation was bound to be so afflicted. End of story! No discussion of those “errors” forthcoming!
His second “thing worth mentioning is that the details were never the point.” In a transparent attempt to justify his refusal to confront those “details,” he mocks how Trump’s “supporters always champion how he turned out to be “right” about various things,” while “ignoring all the times he was obviously wrong…..” Bump’s “logic” would seem to be that Trump’s sometimes tenuous relationship to the truth exonerates the media of the need to investigate his charges against political enemies that are in fact valid! This is but a veiled expression of political bias, a mind-set utterly at odds with genuine investigative journalism! Absurdly, facts don’t really seem to be important to Bump!
A major concern of Trump’s defenders was the so-called Steele dossier, a lengthy compilation of “facts” incriminating to his campaign which would ultimately be largely discredited. Christopher Steele is a former British intelligence officer hired by an investigative firm named Fusion GPS which, coincidentally [?], was also in the employ of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Steele claims he only discovered this later while the Democrats insist they had nothing to do with his dossier. Bump suggests Trump’s claim that the dossier was evidence he was the victim of a witch hunt is invalidated by the fact that the FBI did not become aware of it until Sept. of 2016, months after it had begun its investigation. But given the bias already noted in the “intelligence” community, is it not entirely possible the FBI knew of the Steele dossier long before it chose to acknowledge it? And is not Steele’s claim that he had no idea the firm employing him had any connections to Hillary’s campaign, equally suspicious, as is her party’s claim it had nothing to do with his dossier? Were Donald Trump to make such assertions, would he not be almost universally mocked for his apparent duplicity? Every sentence of Bump’s article suggests an author eager to indict one side while simply exonerating the other; one interested not in journalistic integrity but in flogging a particular point of view. His defenders might exonerate him on the grounds that he was writing an “opinion piece,” but ought not opinions to be rooted in facts rather than sheer bias?
My last blog concerned the efforts of various U.S. “intelligence” agents, in consort with Facebook, Twitter, etc., to banish any discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop story as the 2020 election approached. Each of the above purported to be championing the Truth by exposing “disinformation.” But as the story they sought to kill was basically true, it was they who were perpetrating disinformation, they who were liars and hypocrites pretending to be concerned with the Facts while motivated by nothing more than loathing for Donald Trump..
Sadly, such duplicity pervades the mainstream contemporary media. While Trump is absolutely not above criticism, I have a stack of newspaper clippings before me rife hysterical rhetoric, gross exaggerations and a refusal to acknowledge complexity or nuance of any kind. Should I charge their authors with an unconscionable eagerness to rant on Trump’s flaws while utterly ignoring his government’s accomplishments, you might exclaim: “What accomplishments? Trump had accomplishments?” This, I must inform you, would make you a mindless devotee of the mainstream press.
What better illustrates the absurd cultural bias of our age than the refusal of the Pulitzer Prize Board to revoke its commendation of various journalists who relentlessly pursued the story of Donald Trump’s “Russian collusion,” a story which ultimately proved to be unverifiable. The ex-president has assailed the board on its decision, but apparently if you hate Donald Trump, you are automatically worthy of a prize in our contemporary dystopia. Such is the sophistication of the perspective which has come to dominate the Western World!