The supposed leaks coming out of the Trump Administration have reason to be suspect. The reporting from the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, et.al. have proven to violate the most basic journalistic standards. The publishing of parts of a document that you do not possess and cannot verify, and timing the release of the incomplete and unsubstantiated “leak” to cause maximum political damage (right after the president leaves the country), is not investigative journalism. It is nothing less than political propaganda.
Joel Pollack summarizes it well, he writes: “This pattern keeps repeating itself, from the Khalidi tape to the latest “nut job” story. For the elite mainstream media, when it comes to protecting Democrats or attacking Republicans, there are no journalistic standards, no ethics, and no shame.”
The Gateway Pundit conducted an analysis of the latest mainstream media reporting and charted the recent so called “leaks” which, when taken together, give a clear picture of the lack of integrity of the recent reporting.
|Date||Media Outlet Reporting||Stated Source||Leak||Rebuttal|
|5/20/17||CNN||Source [not identified]||Comey now believes Trump was trying to influence him on his judgement about Russia probe||Not corroborated by Comey– Refuted by Comey’s testimony|
|5/19/2017||New York Times||Document summarizing the meeting [not provided]||Trump called Comey a ‘Nutjob’||Russian FM Lavrov refutes claims that He discussed Comey’s dismissal with Trump|
|5/19/2017||Washington Post||Sources [not identified]||law-enforcement investigation into possible co-ordination between Russia and the Trump campaign had identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest||No legal implications at all|
|5/17/17||Washington Post||Audio recording [not in their possession]||House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy says Putin pays Trump||Those present said he was joking|
|5/16/17||New York Times||Comey memo [not provided or admittedly seen by NYT reporter]||Trump had asked Comey to stop Flynn investigation||Comey testified under oath on May 3rd that he had never been pressured by Trump to stop any investigations|
|5/15/17||Washington Post||Current and former US officials [not identified]||Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador||National Security Advisor McMaster stated nothing shared that was not already public and article itself stated President has authority to declassify secrets.|
|5/12/17||The Hill||One former transition team official with close ties to the administration [not identified]||“It’s total chaos” [the White House]||Constant message coming out of MSM not substantiated|
|5/12/17||ABC||Sources [not identified]||Comey furious at lack of respect White House showed||Not corroborated by Comey|
|5/12/17||CNN||Source familiar with the matter [not identified]||Former FBI Director James Comey is “not worried about any tapes” of conversations between him and President Donald Trump||Not corroborated by Comey|
|5/12/17||Daily Beast||One official [not identified]||White House staff react to Trump tweet with “Jesus”||Not corroborated by anyone, not illegal, another MSM hit piece|
|5/11/17||New York Times||Two people who heard Comey’s account of the dinner [not identified]||In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.||Trump denied this in NBC Interview|
|5/10/17||CNN||Two sources [not identified]||James Comey sought more resources for Russia investigation||Current Director Rosenstein stated in a House probe that there was no evidence Comey asked for more resources for Russia probe|
Former FBI Director James Comey reportedly made some statements in the ‘leaks’ but to this date he has not corroborated any of the statements he reportedly recently made after his firing. It should be noted that all of the reported leaks have been rebutted by known sources.
The media has refused to identify and ‘anonymous’ sources themselves have not come forward with evidence of their claims, leaving readers to assess the credibility of supposed leakers themselves. The Gateway Pundit points out that there is more evidence confirmed that shows clearly the collusion between mainstream outlets, the DNC and the Clinton campaign. That collusion was ignored by the mainstream media when it came out in WikiLeaks but it is far more likely that, based on objective evidence, that the DNC leak was an insider and the Russian narrative is a smoke screen. The Gateway Pundit writes:
Evidence in Hillary Clinton’s creepy campaign manager John Podesta’s emails released before the election by WikiLeaks show that the Clinton campaign was in cahoots with the mainstream media. At least 65 MSM reporters were meeting with and/or coordinating offline with top Hillary advisors.
The WikiLeaks emails also show that as early as December 2015 Podesta discussed Trump’s “bromance with Putin” and the potential for using it as a means to slander Trump. Based on his emails, there is a very high probability that Podesta is behind the ‘leaks’ reported since the election. If Podesta is involved then the probability that the ‘leaks’ are just plain made up is a likely scenario.
If some of the ‘leaks’ are coming out of the ‘deep state’ government then the President is not materially at fault because a large portion of the government is still basically run by the prior Obama Administration. The responsibility for replacing these individuals is with Congress and the Democrats have done all they can to stall the appointment process and Republican leadership appears in no hurry to place the President’s appointees as well. There are 455 key executive branch positions with Obama administration holdovers in many sections of the bureaucracy that are still in control.
Also, regardless of whether the ‘leaks’ are coming out of the government or are just being made up by someone like Podesta, the MSM outlets reporting these stories insulting the Trump Administration are showing the lowest form of journalistic professionalism.
The unsubstantiated sources used for the articles outlined above are not the only indication of a wholesale disregard for basic journalistic standards by the mainstream media. The media has also adopted nefariously loaded terminology, specifically designed to shape public opinion. For instance, media often use right-wing buzzwords to refer to anyone who does not ascribe to their political views, despite their claim to be objective. This conscience decision to use such language can only be interpreted as a intentional act to control how an issue is perceived by the public.
That would be the objective analysis.
Objectivity in journalism has long been a founding principle in reporting. Who, what, when, why & where are the basics. Give the public the facts and let them draw their own conclusions. Media today have abandoned the objectivity standard and replaced it with a pretend ‘neutrality.’ A neutrality flag they waive in an attempt to claim unbiasedness. The ideology of those in the mainstream media has convinced them that objectivity is not only impossible (because of believed intrinsic human biases) but undesirable. As such, since they believe that objectivity is impossible, the liberal media does not and will not engage their intellect to seek out the rightful answers. Whatever he might discover through the process of objectively analyzing a situation, they are convinced, would be at best merely his own “point-of-view” – a point of view that, by definition, would be no more right and no more valid than any and every other. So, to be sure they are not accused of being biased, objectivity has given way to neutrality.
The purpose of the media is to provide us information, information that allows us to form personal policy. I believe that those in the mainstream media today truly believe that objectivity is not only impossible, but evil. Neutrality, which is what the Leftist media is seeking, on the other hand leads always to being wrong. Why? Because if you are unable to objectively assess that something is better than something else because finding something better must be tainted by personal bias then you must invent reasons why those two things are not equally good. For example, the only way they can explain that the rich have been successful is that they have somehow cheated to gain their success and those who have not succeeded are somehow victims of that cheating. It cannot be that the rich person worked hard and took risks because that would imply that the two are not equally good.
All of the scandals above contain attempts by the media to advertise themselves as non-partisan but if you look closely at the narrative it creates, it always aids and abets the Leftist ideology and undermines the Conservative ideology.
Why? Because the Conservative ideology is, by it’s very nature, objective — and thereby, in the mind of the Left, evil.