Imagine for a moment: you go to the same doctor every few weeks. Every time he tells you that you have cancer. Every time you find out that he was not only wrong, but that he never actually ran any tests or lab work. How many times would you go back to that same doctor? Hopefully not very often. To do so would be illogical and counterproductive. Yet, for some reason, many people, albeit a rapidly dwindling amount, still tune in to CNN and MSNBC. They still read the New York Times. And, strangely enough, they still refer to them as “the news."
This past Saturday the New York Times chose to run a ridiculous story dredging up the Brett Kavanaugh smear from a year ago. The Times story alluded to a new book discussing Kavanaugh’s time at Yale and baseless allegations against him. Eerily similar to last year’s hoax against the, now-Supreme Court Justice. Also, eerily similar to last September, the Times failed to disclose the non-accuser’s refusal to confirm the allegations, and her friends’ denial of any memory of the highly questionable and salacious events. Much like NBC News covered up evidence favorable to Kavanaugh last year.
These are the same media outlets that habitually downplayed the glaring holes in the Christine Blasey Ford story, and have, more recently, gone out of their way not to cover Ford’s own attorney stating that her baseless attack was politically motivated. Because it was part of their narrative. Of course, the Times has since walked back their story, but not until after it sat in the media sphere long enough to fuel their narrative, “Kavanaugh is a conservative, and therefore evil," to take full hold of the Democrats. It didn’t really matter to the New York Times, or the rest of the mainstream media, that the story, and narrative, was false.
For nearly three years now, we have been inundated with countless, fantastical, fantasies of some Trump-Russia collusion. Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff even said he had personally seen the evidence of this collusion. Not surprisingly, after $32 million was spent on an army of pro-Clinton lawyers to investigate, not a shred of Russian collusion surfaced. But what about all of the media’s stories leading up to the Mueller Report? Either the media reports were fraudulent, or the Mueller Report was.
Just last week, former Obama political appointee, and current CNN reporter, Jim Sciutto, reported, wrongly, that the CIA was forced to extract an intelligence asset, or spy, from Russia due to President Trump’s handling. Sciutto’s report was debunked by several sources, but not before the damage was done and the false Russia narrative furthered. Where was the accountability for Sciutto or CNN?
All of this follows on the heels of MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell reporting, just three weeks ago, that Russian oligarchs had co-signed Deutsch Bank loan documents for President Trump. Not surprisingly, O’Donnell could not name any sources or even confirm his own reporting. But he did use the all too familiar MSNBC qualifier, “if true." Less than a day later, O’Donnell had to walk back his story, but it had served its purpose. It kept the false narrative of Russian collusion going. MSNBC uses “if true” so often they might want to make it their new motto while replacing the peacock logo with a question mark.
This is the current operating procedure for the left-leaning media. Simply report what the left would like to be true, but don’t bother to confirm. Trumpet baseless allegations as loud as possible, but omit, or cover up, any exculpatory evidence not favorable to the narrative. And most of all, keep the narrative going. Just qualify it with, “If true."
Watching CNN or MSNBC, or reading the New York Times, for news and facts is like smoking cigarettes for the high concentration of vitamin C. The media no longer is, or possibly never has been, interested in the independent and unbiased presentation of facts. The driving force behind, the unrepentant goal of, the left’s media outlets is the perpetual advancement of false narratives to further a leftist political agenda. They do so for the simplest of reasons. They believe that it furthers their cause, liberals believe them, and they can get away with it. To deny this is to deny the plain, and televised, reality of the past twenty plus years.