Dallas Morning News vs. Trump – “Grave Concerns Over Russia” Rumor-based attempts to overturn the election are not what America is about.

Home  »  Media  »  Dallas Morning News vs. Trump – “Grave Concerns Over Russia”
Print This Post Print This Post
Feb 16, 2017 No Comments ›› admin

By Lynn Woolley

Lots of big city newspapers have a media critic – someone like Howard Kurtz that takes a critical look at how the news is covered.

If I may, I’d like to fill that void for the Dallas Morning News—my newspaper of choice – regarding a scathing editorial against President Trump in it’s February 16 edition.  

The Dallas Morning News building on April 4, 2011. Rock of Truth. (Photo: The Dallas Morning News/David Woo)

Citing “grave concerns,” the Editorial Board presents nine points that seem, to them, to convict Trump of what? Treason, I suppose. Two things to begin with:

First, the News supposes a lot of things that they simply don’t know, depending on shadowy figures quoted by the Washington Post or the New York Times. Second is the amazing double standard inherent in this piece.

Nowhere does it mention that the leaks against Trump had to come from the intelligence community – probably the CIA – and that is illegal, and is a threat to our national security.

Lt. General Michael Flynn

The editorial does not mention the Clintons.

I’m all for eliminating conflicts of interest in government. Trump, as a real-state billionaire, has plenty of them that he must work to ameliorate. But, for crying our loud, Bill and Hillary Clinton were, separately and together, a conflict wrapped in ethics violations, and covered with corruption.

The Dallas Morning News did some harm to its reputation by breaking tradition and endorsing – not just a Democrat – but a Clinton who had been embroiled in major scandals including the lies following Benghazi, and a home server that put national security at risk.

The hypocrisy lies in the fact that Democrats and the media (including the News) seem not to care that Hillary Clinton put classified information at risk, or that she was almost certainly hacked by the Russians and the Chinese. But when the DNC and Hillary campaign aide John Podesta were hacked, THEN it became an outrage.

Now, when Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is wiretapped and then illegally leaked, suddenly it’s not a problem.

The 9 “concerns.”

Using large-font numbers the News’ Editorial Board lays out the case against Trump. Here is a brief rebuttal to each:

1. Trump called on Russia to hack Hillary. Please. Trump used satire at his rallies. His well-taken point was that Hillary has deleted 30,000 emails – and maybe only our enemies have them.
2. The Russians hacked the DNC. The implication is that Trump colluded with them and perhaps with Wikileaks. Maybe did. Prove it.
3. Trump promised better relations with Russia. I don’t like Russia, but I’m not ready to go to war. Trump seemed to want to work with them to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.
4. Four former and current federal officials claim that he Trump campaign was in contact with the Russians. This is the worst type of yellow journalism. The News is relying on a New York Times report on shadowy, unnamed sources that are likely loyal to Barack Obama.
5. Russia has incriminating materials against Trump. The News uses the word “unverified.” The journalistic standard used to be double or triple sourcing.
6. Michael Flynn may have discussed sanctions with the Russians. Flynn may well have lied to Vice President Pence – but we still do not know what was said to the Russian ambassador. If I were to use satire, I might suggest that the News wait until the CIA leaks the transcript before they run with it.
7. Putin announced that he would not retaliate for Obama’s sanctions. This is scant evidence. It makes perfect sense for Putin to not retaliate when a new administration was coming in.
8. Acting Attorney general Sally Yates got fired after telling the White House that Flynn mislead Pence. Yates, an Obama holdover actually got fired for refusing to enforce Trump’s temporary travel ban.
9. Flynn remained NSA for weeks despite the fact that President Trump knew he had lied to Pence. Remember, we still have only the news media as a source for what Flynn may have said. Trump was fighting the Democrats who were determined to halt or slow-down all his appointments.

It would be nice to see some serious reporting with actual facts.

The basis of true journalism is holding officials’ feet to fire and keeping them honest. It must be done with facts. Allegations must be carefully vetted and sourced before they go to print or get in front of a TV camera. The Trump “scandal” is remarkable for so many things, but chief among them is the lack of sourcing. Whispers from the shadows are not sourcing.

Video: Donald Trump’s news conference on 2/16/17. The President takes on the media and talks about Gen. Flynn & ties to Russia.

There are many questions to ask.

Why is what Trump and/or Flynn MAY have done more important than what is known that Hillary Clinton actually DID. I refer to her open lies about a video having caused the Benghazi attacks, and her deleting of evidence in the server scandal.

Is there a “shadow government” that is trying to disrupt or even destroy the Trump administration? Who might be involved? Former President Obama? Billionaire George Soros? Obama operatives that are still in the bureaucracy? Who leaked the Flynn wiretap? Was it the FBI or the CIA? What does Obama’s CIA director John Brennan know? Remember, this leak was a felony.

Perhaps most important is what is in the transcript of the Flynn conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Maybe it is damning to the Trump administration. If so, then write the story. The problem with the Dallas Morning News’ editorial is that it is based on a whisper campaign against President Trump.

The news media should understand that Donald Trump was duly elected under our Constitutional electoral system and millions of Americans support him. Rumor-based attempts to overturn the election are not what America is about. As Obama would say – that’s not who we are.

lynn@BeLogical.com

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: