Liberal media not handling criticism of Mueller conflicts well

Michael Goodwin:
A friend likens The New York Times to a 1960s adolescent who refuses to grow up.  In a perpetual state of outrage, it is a newspaper of college snowflakes who embrace all forms of diversity except thought.

It sees its liberal politics not as a point of view, but as received wisdom that cannot be legitimately disputed.

The fixation on conformity reached a new low last week when the paper rolled out a coordinated attack on those of us who believe special counsel Robert Mueller ought to resign. I say coordinated because the newsroom and the opinion page produced similar pieces on the same day, showing again how Executive Editor Dean Baquet has erased the barrier between news and opinion and turned every page into an opinion page.

In the Times’ view, there are only two reasons to question Mueller’s credibility: insanity or treason. And so we detractors stand accused of engaging in a conspiracy that will embolden adversaries like Russia and produce a “constitutional crisis.”

The animating impulse for the assault is obvious — the Times is locked into its mission of destroying President Trump, and, like Hillary Clinton, still cannot accept Trump’s election as legitimate.

Consider that the paper’s dozen Op-Ed columnists are all Never-Trumpers. That’s either a remarkable coincidence or a litmus test for hiring.

But the paper, following a bad habit it developed during Barack Obama’s presidency, is not content with advocating its positions. Behaving like a party propaganda outlet, it takes a coercive approach to anyone with a different view. Objections are demonized as heretical.
There is much more and it is worth reading in full.

Liberals in media have become like the boxer in the Simon and Garfunkel hit by that name.  They "hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest."  This is especially true when it comes to Trump and their visceral hatred for him and his policies. 

They seem to embrace the Russian strategy of making American angry despite the evidence that the Russians pursued that strategy against both candidates.  Only liberals and other Democrats have given into the desires of the Russians.  It now has become clear that the Russian strategy was to sow discord and get the parties angry with each other which would make it harder for either of them to deal with Russian aggression.  Democrats and liberals in the media for their part have turned that strategy into a literal screaming success.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Two-thirds of uninsured uncertain about buying insurance

Dr. Ford symptoms of paranoia and the second front door