The Media Has False Priorities

By any “liberal press” standards, this past week has to rank right up there with regards to Trump bashing.  However, given the cavalcade of negativity, heightened since the 20th of last January, it may very well reside as just another false entry to the media’s Trump onslaught.

The totality of it all, this unrelenting prose from the hurt and shock of the stumbler stumbling has amassed into a monsoon type of an assault which begs that season’s futility of “will it ever end?”  Especially so when confronted with this current rejuvenating economy that is feeding our American resurgence.   Quite the comparison!

Consider such items as the recent, Will Trump Punish the Farm Belt; which was an editorialized thumping of Trump’s pending NAFTA decision.  With his TPP withdrawal still fresh and sore to the memory, the big boys greatest fear would be another dismantling of their precious global beehive.

As nerve racking as was this anticipated “farm belt” calamity, the chance for a knock out surprisingly surfaced from this week’s DACA meetings; in which Trump was presented with a proposal which not only prompted his refusal but infuriated to the point of impeding the entire process.  And this insulting bi-partisan effort was apparently meant to be since the asking price for building our southern border wall was approximately $18 billion, yet this supposed good faith effort offered only a meager $1.6 billion, less than ten percent!

Trending: Toronto Mayor: No More Asylum Seekers!

This was the insulting amount for which Sens. Graham and Durbin expected Trump to sign onto.  What followed not only ended this bargaining façade, it propelled a new journalistic standard detailing what now is a claimed and/or denied utterance.  It’s also interesting that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) took care in noting that both Graham and Durbin “confirmed” Trump’s “vile and racist” language, as termed by Durbin, but it was only Durbin to which this prestigious newspaper quoted.  It would seem that if both “confirmed,” why wasn’t Graham quoted?  Personally, I’ve read Graham’s statement and understand why it was omitted.  So as past charges portend, I’ll place my money on Trump’s denial rather than the media’s coarser version.

Shouldn’t it be of equal insult, when being spelled out in print as to what was or wasn’t said by our President?  I mean if this “s-hole” remark was so “vile” to foreign countries, what about the sensitivities of readership?  I suppose this falls into the bin of “say what?” since the intended reader’s impact takes priority.  Yet still, it may appear somewhat hypocritical with its blunt and repetitious messaging.

Now if this wasn’t damning enough, a reported replay of fantasy was added to this week’s dose of “Trumping.”   Suddenly, reminiscent of a “man being down,” or expectation for that affect, out of the shadows emerged another sexual claim with an unsubstantiated flavor.  In fact, not only unsubstantiated but denied by the lady involved.  However, in another media  bin labeled “never mind,”  this is merely a technicality without any merit.

Supposedly, Trump and Stephanie Clifford, aka porn star Stormy Daniels, had a secret rendezvous way back in 2006.  And just for the proper sleazy and degrading effects, it was also newsworthy to report that this took place only a year after Trump married his third wife, Melania.  The problem is twofold.  Number one, Trump emphatically denies it!  Number two, this WSJ piece seems to be self conflicting.  Once the reader gets past both the front page headline, Trump Lawyer Paid Porn Star, and the WSJ’s iffy, “…Stormy Daniels has privately alleged the encounter with Mr. Trump took place after…” later in the piece we learn that, “a two paragraph statement…signed by ‘Stormy Daniels’ denying she had a ‘sexual and/or romantic affair’ with Mr. Trump” questionably appears.

As unconvincing and confusing as this may be, it was the extent of WSJ’s reporting.  However, another source, a local paper provided additional and more pertinent reporting of Ms Daniels’ statement.  Consider what WSJ chose to omit, akin to Graham’s missing quote: in part, “If indeed I did have a relationship with Donald Trump, trust me, you wouldn’t be reading about it in the news, you would be reading about it in my book.”

This previously ignored statement cements the fallaciousness of this WSJ front page piece while at the same time providing credence to Trump’s belief of “fake news.”   Coupled with the insensitivity when printing out such a despicable term, so it is with the media’s false product, independent of and in complete disregard to it readership.  As such, that term “sensitivity” probably has a rightful claim to its own journalistic bin.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend