Just when I think I can change the subject other than the blatant hypocrisy and deceit of our national press, serve up another fresh batch. There were at least three in the past week.
The first was a parade of eulogies for the recently deceased Senator John McCain. McCain was a veteran and longtime public servant known for his love of this country, so it makes sense that millions of Americans would appreciate his service and mourn his passing.
But press?
During the 2008 presidential campaign, McCain—like every Republican running for national office—was demonized as until nowAND racist and incitement to war a threat to human civilization.Some people still feel that way.)
The second example was another CNN journalistic gaffe. Lanny Davis, the lawyer for Donald Trump’s former consigliere Michael Cohen, he admitted This He was an anonymous source of information from CNN Story from July 27 alleging that Trump knew about and approved a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and several Russians who claimed to have “insults” on Hillary Clinton. While other outlets, to their credit, retracted the story after Davis’ admission, CNN he refused do it.
(By the way, this is exactly the same “leak confirmation” (a “wordplay” the FBI is accused of using to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.)
The third and probably most frightening example is an article in the New York Times on August 27 article about the sexual abuse scandal that is rocking the Catholic Church once again. Right after Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report detailing credible allegations of sexual abuse against 300 priests across the state, former Vatican ambassador to the United States Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano published 11 page letter in which he claims that he (and others) told Pope Francis about homosexual abuse accusations made against then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick years earlier, and that Francis responded by reinstating McCarrick as a priest from which he had previously been removed by Francis’ predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI.
The sex abuse scandal is the Catholic Church’s #MeToo moment. When powerful men like Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer and former U.S. Sen. Al Franken have been credibly accused of sexual harassment in the secular sphere, there were immediate calls for their dismissal or resignation. It is no wonder that many Catholics say that if Viganò’s statements prove to be true, Pope Francis must resign.
But The Times puts it differently, saying that an “ideologically motivated” – conservative – “opposition has weaponized the sex abuse crisis in the church to threaten not just Francis’ agenda but his entire papacy.”
Compare the press treatment of Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. Jordan is accused of turning a blind eye to alleged sexual harassment of Ohio State athletes by team doctor Richard Strauss while Jordan was an assistant men’s wrestling coach. Jordan claims he had no knowledge of the abuse. In a recent NBC News segment article, Several athletes interviewed say that this can’t be true. Jordan is competitor for Speaker of the House. But nowhere in the NBC article is there any suggestion that the nature or timing of the accusations is politically motivated. (In fact, opinion article According to CNN editor-in-chief Chris Cillizza, it suggests that Jordan (the decision to run for Speaker is “political” and that he’s doing it to clear his name.)
The outrage and revulsion over the Pennsylvania report and Viganò’s detailed accusations are genuine. That The Times portrays Catholic reactions as motivated solely by political expediency is cynical in the extreme. (One wonders why The Times is breaking with #MeToo tradition here by believing the accuser; perhaps it is in agreement with Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich, who announced in Interview with NBC Chicago (that the Pope’s agenda on climate change and immigration is more crucial than the “rabbit hole” of sexual abuse of children and newborn men.)
In fact, this is the second time in eight weeks that The New York Times used the word “armed.” In June, when the Supreme Court ruled Janus vs AFSCME AND NIFLA against Becerra Cases, Judge Elena Kagan he argued In her dissenting opinion, Janus said conservatives are “weaponizing the First Amendment,” an accusation made by the New York Times repeated conscientiouslyNow we are told that conservatives are “weaponizing” the sexual harassment crisis.
This term – “arming” – requires some translation. Here’s what it means: The principles we claim to care about are being used by our political opponents to their advantage. And we can’t have that.
In other words, when left defends free speech or the right to freely practice religion, it is brave and noble. When right-wingers do it, it is time to throw out the First Amendment. When the left demands the heads (or at least the jobs) of those who committed or tolerated sexual abuse, they are heroes defending the voiceless and powerless. When conservatives do it, they do it for craven political expediency.
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: Traditional liberals stand for principles and their universal application. Today’s progressives, Saul Alinsky, however, see principles as useful only to the extent that their application produces certain desired outcomes. That’s why left-wing self-identified liberals like Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitzjournalist Glenn Greenwald or former Evergreen State professors Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein can suddenly find themselves in trouble when defending what they considered to be tried and true principles of liberal thought.
That is why society distrusts the increasingly progressive press.
