patrick.net

Media bias comes in two forms. It plays a role in deciding what news is, and is not, covered, and also in deciding how that news is covered. In this instance, the Post's “reporters” are guilty of both. It is obvious they had their own predetermined, prewritten narrative, and they simply discarded information that could have challenged that. This is not only a disservice to readers, but it’s also an offensive, egregious affront to true news journalism.

The Post could have written about the president’s directive to ease all federal student loan debt for disabled veterans. They didn’t. They could have written about the first time in history a sitting United States president walked across the DMZ into North Korea. Not a chance. They could have written about the first stage of the president’s historic trade deal with Japan, which will give our American farmers even more access to one of the largest and most promising markets. Of course not. The president even fixed dangerous immigration loopholes to increase border security and make American communities safer, but these two reporters would not deviate from their preset narrative and write about that either. ...

Many in the media jumped on the bandwagon to rip Trump for calling Baltimore “rat infested,” but the media never apologized when a video surfaced of Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh making the exact same complaint. ...

Despite record-setting accomplishments in record-setting time, data shows the news coverage of Trump has been 92% negative. The most egregious and dangerous forms of this bias thrived this summer at media outlets like the Washington Post, which routinely masquerade opinion as news. Heading into the fall, the Post and others should at the very least pledge to sequester such breathless partisanship, rampant editorializing, and obvious bias to their opinion pages.