OPINION:
The post-debate headline from The Hill went like this: “House Republicans bemoan Trump debate performance: ‘Not good’” — as if to say Donald Trump performed so poorly against Kamala Harris in the pair’s first public matchup that even MAGA types in Congress were wringing their hands. Who were these moaning, groaning GOP members?
We don’t know. They weren’t named. Every freaking anti-Trump criticism attributed to each and every one of them in the story came anonymously.
This is called unethical journalism.
It may also be called — as Trump popularized — fake news.
And the fact that The Hill would allow such a sad and sorry hit piece to go forth as a main headliner on the webpage at so crucial a moment in U.S. political history shows the utter immorality of most of today’s media.
“House Republicans are bemoaning former President Trump’s performance in the first — and potentially only — debate against Vice President Harris, acknowledging that the Democratic nominee successfully got under her GOP opponent’s skin,” The Hill wrote.
“’It’s just sad,’ one House Republican who is supportive of Trump told The Hill,” The Hill wrote. Who was this House Republican? Don’t know. Unnamed.
“‘The road [to the White House] just got very narrow,’ they added,” The Hill wrote in the next line. ““This is not good.’” Who is “they?” Don’t know. Unnamed — unnamed and curiously referenced, given the paragraph above said “one Republican who is supportive of Trump told The Hill” and then the next, seemingly a continuation of that thought, said “they added.” But then again, it probably doesn’t matter when the sources are unnamed; one source, two sources, 50 sources, whatever.
“A second House Republican, who requested anonymity,” The Hill wrote, “said ‘many’ in the GOP conference were ‘disappointed’” in Trump. Who was this source? Don’t know. Unnamed.
“‘Lots of missed opportunities so far,’ a third House Republican told The Hill in a text message,” The Hill wrote. Who was this source? Don’t know. Unnamed.
“A fourth House Republican … said [Trump] ‘is all over the map and has missed opportunities to hammer [Harris’s] record,’” The Hill wrote. Who was this source? Don’t know. Unnamed, once again.
Fire the editors who let that piece of junk go forth.
But that won’t happen.
That won’t happen because this crap is what passes for journalism these days. The Hill isn’t the only news outlet to pretend its journalism is unbiased — and to offer readers unsourced material that’s passed off as reputable reporting.
America has just come off years of Russia collusion and pee tape coverage that was the ultimate in political takedowns masked as righteous watchdogging. But when stakes are as high as this looming presidential election, it seems the media could do a better job of at least covering up their bias.
It’s downright insulting to intelligent people everywhere to report on the criticisms of Republicans against Trump, yet fail to name any of those Republicans who were criticizing Trump, and then shove that story in the top slot of a news webpage in the section normally reserved for Most Important News Of The Day. At least position the propaganda lower on the page, right?
Mo’ bias, mo’ bias, mo’ pretend-not-biased.
Pretending as if all the post-debate discussions found Trump as the loser, Harris as the winner, by posting story after story and headline after headline and social media mention after social media mention of criticisms against Trump and praises for Harris — so as to create the narrative that nobody — Nobody! — thought Trump did well —that’s just despicable journalism.
But this particular Trump Derangement Syndrome activity scores especially high with the Democrats and their fawners in the media when the headlines carry mention of a Republican who sadly, oh so reluctantly, oh so hesitantly, nonetheless had to acknowledge Trump was, feign, feign, wink, wink, bested by Harris.
“Romney: Harris’s debate performance shows she’s ‘an intelligent, capable person,’” The Hill wrote.
“Even Republicans describe Trump’s debate showing as a ‘disaster,’” MSNBC wrote.
Surely, someone, somewhere thought Harris didn’t perform well, or that Trump beat her on issues, or that the strategy of the Democrats in coaching their next hoped-for president weirdly focused on having her fix her opponent with glassy-eyed, goofy-smiled stares and inviting Americans to attend his campaign rallies? Surely, someone, somewhere thought these thoughts and could’ve been cited in stories to balance out the Kamala love fest that’s dominated the news cycles?
After all, as the standard seems to be, it’s not like these sources would have to be named.
It’s not like these more pro-Trump sources would even have to be real.
But that’s what makes the media so horrible and untrustworthy these days: they’re quite willing to cast aside basic journalism principles to score political points against those representing views they detest.
The basic standard of journalism used to be who, what, where, when, why and sometimes how in the first paragraph; followed by at least three quoted and named sources presenting different viewpoints; followed by attempts to contact those who were criticized by sources to get — for print, on the record — their response. As for those sources who requested anonymity?
They couldn’t be used in the story, save for very special circumstances that had to be approved by at least one editor.
Most newsroom executives and editors still pretend as if these basic standards still exist. Most journalists are still trained in the ways of these basic standards.
They know the standard.
They just don’t care.
More than that — they think most Americans are too stupid to notice. But when 99 percent of the coverage criticizes Trump and simultaneously elevates Harris in a positive light, even the lowest informed consumer of news takes notice. It’s not the bias that’s problematic. It’s the lies of being unbiased. It’s the insult to Americans’ intelligence.
Trump has a point: Many in the media truly are showing themselves to be the enemy of the people.
• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley. Listen to her podcast “Bold and Blunt” by clicking HERE. And never miss her column; subscribe to her newsletter and podcast by clicking HERE. Her latest book, “Lockdown: The Socialist Plan To Take Away Your Freedom,” is available by clicking HERE or clicking HERE or CLICKING HERE.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.