Inverting Morality at the Post

Mollie Hemingway, senior editor at The Federalist, illustrates why today's media is held in such low esteem by fair-minded people. The Washington Post recently did a column written by Philip Rucker, Robert Costa and Rachel Bade in which this paragraph appeared:

Trump's sense of himself as above the law has been reinforced throughout his time in office. As detailed in the Mueller report, he received help from a foreign adversary in 2016 without legal consequence. He sought to thwart the Russia investigation and possibly obstruct justice without consequence. Through the government, he has earned profits for his businesses without consequence. He has blocked Congress's ability to conduct oversight without consequence.

As Hemingway writes, each sentence in this paragraph is simply false and some are the exact opposite of the truth.

For instance, consider this claim:

As detailed in the Mueller report, he received help from a foreign adversary in 2016 without legal consequence.

Hemingway is incredulous that any honest person whose profession it is to report and comment upon the news would make such a ludicrous assertion:

What in the world? What are Philip Rucker, Bob Costa, and Rachel Bade smoking? This was not “detailed” in the Mueller report. This is not even a remotely accurate summation of that report, even while acknowledging how partisan of a report it was.

In fact, the report found that the entire basis for the investigation — supposed treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election — had no evidence in support of it. Not only did Trump not conspire with Russia to steal the 2016 election, not a single American was found to have done so....

It is unclear what “legal consequence” Rucker, Costa, and Bade are fantasizing about, particularly considering it’s a fantasy that even Andrew Weissman’s politically motivated special counsel team couldn’t dream of suggesting.

Each of the other statements in the paragraph is also deeply flawed. Read Hemingway's analysis at the link to see why.

She closes with this:

In other words, every sentence in the Washington Post paragraph is well past the point of bias, or slant, or not being even-handed. These sentences are outright and blatant and unabashed falsehoods in the service of a particular political party and agenda.

The Washington Post is singularly and relentlessly devoted to taking down the Republican president. This paragraph shows what so many other paragraphs in so many other articles show, day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year: some reporters are willing to express false statements in service to one political party and in opposition to another.

This is not journalism, but propaganda.

She's right, of course. Large sectors of our media have decided to forfeit their role as reliable sources of information and are waging an all-out struggle to discredit the Trump administration. It's a struggle in which traditional ethical constraints have been turned on their head, the only rule is to win and whatever works to accomplish that end is acceptable.

Falsehood and truth have been transformed into moral equals. If lies work to unseat Mr. Trump and the truth impedes that result, then lies are right and good and reporting the truth is wrong and bad.

Little wonder that Mr. Trump has persuaded so much of the American public that the mainstream media is "Fake News." Their frenzied hatred of the president, their refusal to report on him objectively and their lack of a moral compass have brought this disrepute upon themselves.