One would think that after a decade of covering Donald Trump's political career, the media would have learned some lessons.
That's wrong.
Coverage of the Arlington “controversy” shows the media's repetition of the same hyperbolic language, anonymous sources, and liberal critics, even though they have been proven wrong time and time again.
take Washington Post article“How President Trump's visit caused chaos at America's most sacred cemetery”
At issue is whether Trump's team was allowed to take photos at certain parts of the cemetery and whether officials were wrong to try to prevent them from doing so.
In paragraph 20: 20! The father of a soldier killed in the bombing of Afghanistan sparked by the Harris-Biden administration's disastrous withdrawal said he welcomed Trump to the cemetery.
“We invited him. He didn't come to us,” said Darin Huber, father of Staff Sergeant Darin “Taylor” Huber. “He's shown nothing but goodwill to all of us and what happened to our children. No one is going to take that away from the ceremony, not at the wreath laying or at the grave. This is unacceptable.”
Any editor reading this will probably think, “That's it, case closed.”
The families of fallen soldiers are the ones who matter. largely In this scenario.
If they weren't angry or offended, how on earth could this be a story?
But that won't stop The Washington Post.
Before quoting Huber, the paper cited anonymous sources as saying cemetery officials were “deeply concerned” about Trump's visit and that members of the liberal group BoatVets, which has no connection to the ceremony, said they were “disgusted.”
Again, it is in front President Trump asked the father of a fallen soldier whose grave he was visiting for his opinion.
In the end, this was just a disagreement between one of Trump's staff and an Arlington employee. Nevertheless, the media covered it as the biggest scandal of the month.
This happens so often that it has become a cliché.
Consider the Michael Flynn story, which The Washington Post breathlessly claimed “discussed sanctions with Russia” during the 2016 transition period before President Trump took office.
After agonizing for several paragraphs about whether this is wrong, By name Michael McFaul, who served as ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, defended the incident, even acknowledging that the meeting took place in Moscow “a few weeks before Obama won the 2008 election.”
All we can conclude is that Flynn did nothing wrong, but it cost Post a Pulitzer Prize and cost Flynn his position in the administration.
The media hasn't changed, but voters have. They no longer believe unfounded conspiracy theories and vaunted claims about the breakdown of norms. And journalists have only themselves to blame.
