The self-described "paper of record," the New York Times, is another participant in the fake news world. Following the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise and others by a left-wing fanatic, the New York Times tried to do what the left commonly does - create an equivalency with the right when someone on their side engages in bad behavior. In this case, the paper attempted to equate the shooting of Scalise with the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords six years ago.
Said the Times in one of their editorials: "Before the shooting (of Gabby Giffords) Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs." First, the cross hairs were over the districts - not on individual politicians. Second, the shooting of Gabby Giffords was in 2011. It has been common knowledge for quite some time that the shooter had no particular political affiliation that motivated him to commit his murderous acts. He was thought to be a mentally ill individual.
So, why would the New York Times run with such a story in their editorial? They had to know it was false. This editorial is best understood as yet another example of what motivates the left - their left-wing agenda. As I have noted before, truth often bows to the agenda. Their "issues" are their values, which also explains why the left and the right do not share the same values. The right relies on fundamental religious and Constitutional values.
The allegations against Sarah Palin were so obviously false that the Times had to issue a "correction." It read as follows: "An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established." However, there was such a link between the shooting of Representative Scalise and his shooter - as that shooter clearly hated Republicans. The "correction" did not include an apology to Sarah Palin, who is now suing the Times over the editorial.
Recently, another anti-Trump news outlet - CNN - had their own controversy. Three of their journalists were forced to resign. A story run by CNN accused Trump adviser, Anthony Scaramucci, of having improper ties to Russia. Mr. Scaramucci denied the allegations and the network did not have the facts to back up the claim.
James O'Keefe runs Project Veritas. One of his people was speaking with a CNN producer, John Bonifield. Bonifield: "Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting...he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we are done with that, let's get back to Russia." Queried the Project Veritas reporter: "Then why is CNN constantly, like, Russia this, Russia that?" Bonifield: "Because it's ratings." To which I would add, it is also consistent with their left-wing, attack Trump news.
Just how biased against Trump is the mainstream media? Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy sought to study that issue, looking at Trump's first 100 days in office. The results should not be surprising to anyone. CNN and NBC had the worst records for fair reporting, with 93% of their news coverage of Trump being negative, with only 7% being positive. As for the rest: CBS was 91% negative and 9% positive, The New York Times was 87% negative and 13% positive, The Washington Post was 83% negative and 17% positive, The Wall Street Journal was 70% negative and 30% positive, and Fox News (formerly under the slogan "Fair and Balanced" but now "Most Watched, Most Trusted") was the only one of these media outlets to have balanced reporting - 52% negative and 48% positive.
Overall, Trump's coverage was 80% negative and only 20% positive. Obama's first hundred days came in at 60% positive to 40% negative. That is a 40% shift towards the negative. Notwithstanding these statistics, it does not mean that I believe Trump should engage in a Twitter war with every critical news outlet or individual. I would like to see him use Twitter to discuss his accomplishments and his policies. But, an occasional Tweet against the "fake media" is sometimes in order.