Home Committed Conservative Views How Long Can The News Media Protect The Democrats?

How Long Can The News Media Protect The Democrats?


That there is a double standard in the establishment news media’s coverage of political scandals is beyond any rational dispute. But can even the establishment news media protect the Democrats from the evidence of what could be the biggest corruption scandal in American history?

First, the double standard:

If a Republican is accused of scandalous conduct, the news media cover it as if it’s an established fact that the Republican’s conduct was scandalous, even where there is no evidence, and even where the evidence actually proves that the Republican’s conduct was entirely appropriate.

  • When Republican President George W. Bush, at the beginning of his first term, asked for the resignations of all U.S. attorneys (all of whom had been appointed by his Democratic predecessor), the Democrats decided that it was a scandal, and the news media dutifully covered it as such. It didn’t matter that every president has the authority and right under the Constitution to appoint his own people to high-level executive positions within his administration. It didn’t matter that other presidents of both parties had done the same thing. The Democrats decided to make it a scandal, so the news media loyally covered it as such.
  • In 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took to the floor of the Senate to accuse Republican nominee Mitt Romney of not having paid any taxes for years on end. He offered not the slightest shred of evidence, stating that it was up to Romney to disprove his unsubstantiated allegation. The news media dutifully adopted that standard, and rather than demanding that Reid offer any support for his charge, they covered his accusation as if it were true and demanded that Romney offer any evidence that it wasn’t.
  • More recently, the news media reported as a scandal that Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year, while a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had met with the Russian ambassador on a couple of occasions. The Democrats jumped to the conclusion that this was proof of a conspiracy between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russians to rig the election, and the news media dutifully covered it as such. It didn’t matter that all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regularly meet with ambassadors of countries across the world. It didn’t matter that high-ranking members of Hillary Clinton’s campaign had met with the Russian ambassador and that Sen. Sessions, by contrast, had no official position with the Trump campaign. The news media all but ignored the Clinton campaign contacts and covered the Sessions contacts as a full-fledged scandal.

The news media’s coverage of scandalous conduct by Democrats is entirely the reverse. The media routinely serve as protectors of Democrats who engage in corruption.

  • In 1998, Newsweek had the story of President Clinton’s affair with a young intern and deliberately decided not to print it. The story did not break until the then relatively obscure Drudge Report ran it and reported on the decision by Newsweek to cover it up. Note also that the Newsweek cover-up was utterly ignored by the rest of the establishment news media.
  • In 2007, during Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, irrefutable evidence emerged about Obama having attended a church led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who had a life-long history of making racist statements and statements hostile to the United States generally. This story was reported prominently in the conservative alternative media, but the establishment news media didn’t report on it until a full year after it broke in the conservative media.  Even then the establishment media only covered it for a few days. The establishment news media never prominently covered Obama’s long and close affiliation with other leftist radicals, some of whom are convicted terrorists, like Bill Ayers.
  • In 2013, the IRS admitted that it was targeting conservative organizations, forcing them to jump through onerous administrative hoops for years on end in order to be granted tax-exempt status, while rubber-stamping liberal organizations. Furthermore, many people who dared to complain about this disparate treatment were audited in retaliation. Republican President Richard Nixon was forced to resign in part over allegations that he had merely considered using the IRS in this fashion, but the establishment news media refused to give more than grudging superficial coverage to this major corruption scandal by the Obama administration.
  • In 2015, the Inspector General of the U.S. Postal Service issued a report finding that a $1 billion contract issued to the firm of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s husband’s was not issued in the manner such contracts are normally issued and would not save the USPS any money. Conservative news media reported on this apparent conflict of interest, but the silence of the establishment news media was deafening.

These and dozens of other instances prove that the establishment news media have long served as a willing sword against Republicans and shield protecting Democrats.

The result of the news media’s protection of Democrat corruption has been that the Democrats have become emboldened in their corrupt conduct. See, for example, the enormous pay-for-play scheme implemented by Bill and Hillary Clinton that made them enormously wealthy and that was only grudgingly covered in the news media – as the Clintons knew would be the case. See Obama’s corrupt use of the IRS to target his political opponents that was all but ignored by the establishment news media – as he knew it would be.

Which brings us to the newest and biggest Democrat corruption scandal yet: Very strong evidence has now emerged that President Obama’s National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, deliberately ordered intelligence agencies to “unmask” (reveal and provide) communications covertly obtained of Donald Trump and his campaign and associates during the campaign and presidential transition. The evidence shows that this illegal surveillance of Trump and his team began before Trump had even become the nominee of his party.

There is no evidence to date that the intelligence agencies were directed to specifically target Trump and his associates for covert surveillance. However, in the course of their normal operations, many such communications were intercepted. Intelligence agencies are prohibited by law from disseminating these kinds of communications unless they contain information relevant to terrorist or other national security matters. But Susan Rice ordered the intelligence agencies to break the law, unmask the communications of Trump and associates communications, and provide them to her. And the Obama intelligence agencies did so.

Unlike so many of the so-called “scandals” doggedly reported by the news media on Republicans based on nothing more than accusations by Democrats with no evidence whatsoever, there is very significant evidence of these felonious activities by Ms. Rice and others throughout the Obama administration.

This is potentially the biggest corruption scandal in American history, yet the establishment news media are dutifully and loyally ignoring it.

At least so far.

There have been rare occasions in which the reporting on Democrat scandals by alternative media revealed evidence that was so compelling that the establishment news media could no longer deliberately ignore it without destroying even their pretense of objectivity. They had to cover the story of Clinton’s affair with an intern after the exposé in the Drudge Report went viral. They had to cover Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright when the story continued to gain attention over a period of months of reporting in the alternative media.

The evidence of corruption of the highest order by high-ranking members of the Obama administration is likely to be another story that the establishment news media won’t be able to ignore, no matter how much CNN has announced its intention to do so.

If a president and/or his administration was using national intelligence resources to spy on the campaign of the presidential candidate of the opposite party, he was engaging in corruption so dangerous to our democratic institutions and fundamental liberties that it would constitute literally the biggest corruption scandal in all of American history.

The evidence appears to suggest that this did indeed happen, and at some point, the news media are likely to reach a point of embarrassment for not covering it that they will have to do so, no matter how grudgingly.

When that happens, maybe we’ll find out what Barack Obama knew and when he knew it. We will, however, get to see how the Democrats deal with a major scandal without their loyal establishment news media protecting them. They’re not used to flying without a net.

Author: Ken Falkenstein







Comments are closed.