Public trust in the media has hit an all-time-low in polling and the reason was evident this week with controversies over partisan and erroneous pieces published by the Washington Post and HuffPost targeting Senators Ted Cruz (R., Tx.) and Tim Scott (R., S.C.). The HuffPost was compelled to take down a tweet falsely accusing Cruz of lying while the Washington Post ran a hit piece on Scott that claimed (but failed) to show false elements to his “cotton to Congress” life story.
Cruz stated that “We had a Republican president, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House. We didn’t do this. We could have … You didn’t see Republicans when we had control of the Senate try to rig the game. You didn’t see us try to pack the Court.”
HuffPost publicly attacked Cruz for lying about court packing in a widely circulated tweet: “Sen. Ted Cruz may have told his biggest lie yet with the claim that Republicans never engaged in court packing when they controlled the White House and Congress.” That is not a lie. Republicans did not attempt to pack the Court.
The HuffPost then went from dishonestly to duplicity by claiming “An earlier version said that Cruz lied about court packing. The dishonesty lies in the claim that Republicans never “rigged the game.”
Rather than admit that they made a false claim, HuffPost insisted it was making a different point after deleting the original point.
Yet, HuffPost continued to call Cruz the “master gaslighter.”
Democrats have struggled to find higher ground as many have called for the packing of the Supreme Court — a move long opposed by the vast majority of Americans. President Joe Biden has refused to denounce court packing. As a result, some have claimed that Republicans have packed the Court by opposing Merrick Garland and holding seats for Republican nominees. That is not packing under any plausible definition of the term. I supported Garland getting a vote in the Senate. However, the Senate has the constitutional authority to vote or not vote on a nominee. (Otherwise, the Democrats would have gone to court to secure an order to force a constitutionally required vote). The HuffPost however claimed that the GOP actually tried court packing.
The fact is that the GOP did not kill the filibuster when they held the majority and did not seek to pack the Court.
The Washington Post had its own embarrassing moment this week with a bizarre piece by Glenn Kessler that suggested that Scott exaggerated his life story of going from a childhood picking cotton to the halls of Congress. The piece promised some hidden lie or exaggeration: “Tim Scott often talks about his grandfather and cotton. There’s more to that tale.” What was disturbing is that the piece was tied directly to Scott being selected to give the response to Biden after his national address — adding to the impression that it was a raw and preemptive hit piece.
When you read the piece, you find nothing. The Post noted that “The tale of his grandfather fits in with a narrative of Scott moving up from humble circumstances to reach a position of political power in the U.S. Senate. But Scott separately has acknowledged that his great-great-grandfather, Lawrence Ware, once owned 900 acres in South Carolina.” The second line does nothing to contradict the statement in the first line. Moreover, the Post goes on to say that it is relying on “the South Carolina census records” but “census data is historically questionable at best — and at times unreliable.”
Kessler’s piece would have been a good foundation for a profile story on Scott and his family history. Instead, it wanted a juggler’s hit on a Republican senator just before he was given a national platform to challenge President Biden.
What is left is a gotcha headline and no support. The Post simply says that the story may be “more complex” than just “cotton to Congress.” It is bizarre. The Post states “Scott’s family history in South Carolina offers a fascinating window into a little-known aspect of history in the racist South following the Civil War and in the immediate aftermath of slavery — that some enterprising Black families purchased property as a way to avoid sharecropping and achieve a measure of independence from White-dominated society.” Ok, then what is the point? It sounds like his family did raise cotton and was enterprising. The most that Kessler can claim is “Scott’s ‘cotton to Congress’ line is missing some nuance, but we are not going to rate his statements.”
“Missing some nuance”?
There is no nuance in the point of the piece what was to sandbag a senator who would be responding to President Biden.
Both of these controversies only magnify criticism that the media often seems to act like a state media, echoing narratives and blocking stories in support of the Administration. In the new model of advocacy journalism, media outlets cater to viewers and readers who want their bias reaffirmed in reporting and coverage. The result is a general drop in viewership or subscriptions and an absolute tanking of trust in the media.
The plunging level of trust reflects the loss of the premier news organizations to a type of woke journalism. We have have been discussing how writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. Even journalists are leading attacks on free speech and the free press. This includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation.
Now the HuffPost is engaging in open gaslighting to accuse a senator of gaslighting. The irony is lost on readers who simply do not care. They want hit pieces and HuffPost guarantees that they will not be challenged in any way from their hardened viewpoints. The result is that divisions are fueled by the media and the public has no source that is generally trusted as a neutral and honest news source.
It appears at least one reader spotted the problem . . .
As “Big Daddy” might say, there is nothing quite as strong as the smell of media mendacity.
There are some posting on this forum telling us that the Huffington Post and The Washington Post presented their stories with no animosity toward Cruz or Scott. Even most of the liberals on this forum would admit the leanings of these two esteemed purveyors of opinion. Since Garland has come up in the comments we should look at Joe Biden’s opinion on consideration of a new Supreme Court Justice during an election year. I know that his followers here will be anxious to apply the very words of the man they filled in the oval for on Election Day. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581754/user-clip-biden-senate-hearings-scotus-vacancy-election-year. The smell of mendacity is indeed ripe herein.
Did you actually listen to what Biden said?
“In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.
“Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.
“Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”
Biden said that on June 25. Garland was nominated on March 16, months before the conventions. It simply doesn’t describe the situation with Garland.
Biden’s statement was about the timing of the nomination, not about the Senate not holding hearings for that nominee.
You just can’t discuss it truthfully, TIT.
It is my view that if the president goes the way a president’s Filmore and Johnson impresses an election year nomination. The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever. Until after the political campaign season is over.
“There is nothing quite as strong as the smell of media mendacity.”
– Professor Turley
______________
That’s not mendacity you’re smelling, it’s treason. The anti-American, counter-Constitution, communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) propaganda flushed out onto America by the mainstream media (MSM) constitutes “…adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…,” those enemies adhered to being the likes of brutal, communist China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
America is good. The Constitution is good. Freedom is good. Free people create wealth and their own success and that is good. For Americans to become “woke,” phantom white guilt must be annihilated and vaporized. Before it is too late, every last scintilla of anti-American, counter-Constitution treason must be exposed for what it is and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the the law and with extreme prejudice. America and the Constitution are in the balance.
______________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
America created wealth and succeeded in freedom.
America is squandering treasure and dying in communism (liberalism, progressiveism, socialism, democratism, RINOism).
Parasites feed on their hosts until their hosts die, causing the need to eradicate parasites.
In addition to my comment below there are no restrictions to the Senate confirming a Supreme Court nominee with a simple majority. The Senate makes its own rules that are not restricted by the Constitution. They may choose to increase or decrease the members of the Supreme Court as they please with the blessing of the House of Representative and the President. Not that I think they should do so, but they have that right to propose any course they want by merely changing the Senate rules that now exist.
Many comments below postulate that the United States Senate has the absolute duty to take up a Supreme Court Nominee forwarded by the President. There is no where within any document that states the Senate must perform any item or agenda the President asks for. Article II Section 2 reads in part”…and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate…” the President shall appoint not the Senate must. Advice is defined as a recommendation about actions or behavior, and Consent is defined to express willingness. The Senate and House of Representatives respective are equal to the President and may choose to act on or ignore the President’s actions, or to take counter actions to the President. They may leave various appointments the President makes open for any duration as they so choose, as an example, how many Ambassador Posts are left open currently?
Why waste yourself on ugly smear jobs? Why preach to the choir? Trump did it better. He didn’t defend against the attack, he attacked the attacker’s character. He used their own public record against them, but even uglier. Better yet, the Huff and WaPo are hurting themselves without your help. Cruz and Scott don’t need it either. Strong and positive is what wins for the GOP.
The really telling phrase in the WAPO article is “racist South.” They use “racist” as a buzzword. No, black farmers didn’t buy land to “avoid sharecropping,” they bought land because they somehow had the means to do it just as white farmers did. Sharecropping was the only means many had to make a living. Sadly, modern Americans have no clue what sharecropping and tenant farming really are.
Even in the South, black “=”, but not equal to slave, and diversity was an irregular practiced bigotry.
Turley wrote: “What was disturbing is that the piece was tied directly to Scott being selected to give the response to Biden after his national address — adding to the impression that it was a raw and preemptive hit piece”
Bingo. It is intentional. It is a brazen hit piece. They know exactly what they are doing and why. Propaganda DNC press.
OT:
Darren, there isn’t a comments section for your column, so I’m posting this here. Your column made me think that you’d enjoy the documentary California Typewriter –
Don’t forget the Wite-Out.
Well to be fair , Kessler ought to write , in a similar tone, that there is more to Biden’s reliance ( myth) of his blue collar upbringing.
We won’t see that piece, will we?
You could suggest that to Kessler if you wanted to –
https://glennkessler.com/contact.html
Thanks for the suggestion – will do! And will expect to see it
This site is one of the best out there and it gets so tiring to see some people on here that do nothing but complain about it. The internet is pretty big and yet these small minded contrarians have some odd need to go to a site that they disagree with, become ugly about it and disparage the host, a guy that is doing a great job with this platform.
If you have a disagreement with a point Jonathan is making please make the point in a cogent and decent manner, not some disparaging remark that shows your hatred for a bright guy who happens to not agree with you on everything. Go follow some idiot like Lawrence tribe or any of the other sell outs on the left side of the bar.
Court packing is just as legal as not acting on a domination or holding a rushed confirmation. All three also poll badly with the public. So Rs that are against court packing are just as hypocritical as they always are.
Also Fox and other right wing media does outright false hit pieces on Ds all the time.
If all of you defending Kessler, thought he wrote the article to praise Scott, you are delusional. He would have no need to write this article except to put some suspicion in the mind of the reader that Scott was lying about his history. If someone on Fox News had written this article about a black Democrat, you would be here yelling racism.
“He would have no need to write this article except to put some suspicion in the mind of the reader that Scott was lying about his history”
Depends on your definition of “lying.” Some of the conservative here, like Olly, Allan, and Young, regularly say that others are “lying by omission.” Using their preferred stance about lying, Scott is lying by omission.
I’m a liberal, and personally, I don’t call that lying. I use the standard definition: kwowingly making a false claim with intent to deceive. By this definition, Scott is NOT lying. Kessler did not say that Scott was lying, nor do I think “he wrote the article to praise Scott.” He just added some interesting details re: Scott’s family history.
“If someone on Fox News had written this article about a black Democrat, you would be here yelling racism.”
No, I wouldn’t.
Anonymous the Stupid, I guess haven’t never learned what pertinent facts are. You have a deficient education.
“The fact is that the GOP did not kill the filibuster when they held the majority and did not seek to pack the Court.”
That is a true fact, yet leftists say differently. We know the left is lying because they lack the ability to back up any of the lies they state. Instead their proof is WaPo which is responsible for most of the lies floating around. The actual FBI reports show that the WaPo lied over and over again yet these leftists will post the lies even after the WaPo has issued a retraction.
Ethical and moral restraints do not prevent the left from lying. The stoop so low they promote character assassination.
Considering that both organizations are populated by low life, bottom feeding parasites totally lacking in morals or integrity I fail to understand why anyone would bother to read anything they publish let alone comment on it.
As usual you are reading and writing from the GOP talking points. Good grief! Do you really thing we don’t read? Now if you want to talk about the New York Post and it’s smears against VP Harris but I guess that os ok with you….that a Republican smear machine. I used to be disappoint when I read post sike this by you but now I just sigh and wonder what it was that flipped you from a legal issue commentator to a right wing mouth piece.
“Justice,” how closed minded you are to assume that the right is never right.
“the Washington Post ran a hit piece on Scott that claimed (but failed) to show false elements to his “cotton to Congress” life story.”
It did not. JT didn’t quote anything from the Washington Post “claim[ing] … to show false elements to his “cotton to Congress” life story,” and if you read Kessler’s column, Kessler never says “false” and never uses another word equivalent to “false.” He only says things like “Our research reveals a more complex story than what Scott tells audiences.”
Will JT “admit that [he, himself] made a false claim”? Or will he be a hypocrite where he criticizes the Huffington Post for not admitting they made a false claim, while being unwilling himself to admit he made a false claim?
“What is left is a gotcha headline and no support.”
The headline was “Tim Scott often talks about his grandfather and cotton. There’s more to that tale.” That’s not a “gotcha headline.” Kessler did include support for both “Tim Scott often talks about his grandfather and cotton” and “There’s more to that tale.”
Will JT “admit that [he, himself] made a false claim” by falsely claim that Kessler provided “no support”?
“Now the HuffPost is engaging in open gaslighting to accuse a senator of gaslighting.”
It is not. Cruz was gaslighting when he said “You didn’t see Republicans when we had control of the Senate try to rig the game.” Trying to rig the game is what McConnell did by working hard to prevent Obama from filling judicial vacancies and then quickly filling them after Trump was inaugurated.
“Kessler never says “false” and never uses another word equivalent to “false.” He only says things like “Our research reveals a more complex story than what Scott tells audiences.’”
Stick with parsing phrases. That’s your forte. Abstract thinking and seeing implications — not so much.
You think distinguishing between true and false is “parsing phrases”?
Do you prefer Humpty Dumpty’s view?
Notice that you cannot bring yourself to admit that Turley’s claim “the Washington Post ran a hit piece on Scott that claimed (but failed) to show false elements to his ‘cotton to Congress’ life story” is FALSE.
Kessler did NOT claim “false elements to his ‘cotton to Congress’ life story.” It is not “parsing phrases” to point this out.
“Kessler did NOT claim “false elements to his ‘cotton to Congress’ life story.’”
You are correct — because the writer, like many journalists, is too dishonest to state his convictions clearly, and too cowardly to state them openly. Instead, his slurs are left to implication and innuendo. Unfocused readers fall for it. Lackeys lap it up.
“the Senate has the constitutional authority to vote or not vote on a nominee.”
Let’s be clear: the Senate didn’t choose not to have a vote. A single person, Mitch McConnell, as Senate Majority Leader, chose not to have a vote. The Constitution says nothing about the Senate Majority Leader, much less does it say anything about what the Senate Majority Leader can unilaterally impose on the Senate.
Like a Speaker of the House who unilaterally decides to have an impeachment. And then unilaterally decided not to forward the Articles to the Senate?
“Like a Speaker of the House who unilaterally decides to have an impeachment.”
No, impeachment cannot occur without the vote of the entire House.
Every time the House has impeached the President, the Articles of Impeachment have been presented to the Senate.
Silberman…..all ways the Nitwit!
Stick to the issues at hand….a hit piece by the WaPo that insists it is a credible news source but publishes rubbish and the HuffPo that merely imagines itself to be something it surely is not.
Face it…the Leftist infested Media is a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party…..at least Politico admits it….why can you not?
Ralph, how about you quote something from Kessler’s article that you consider “rubbish” and present evidence that it’s false?
“Rather than admit that they made a false claim, HuffPost insisted it was making a different point after deleting the original point.”
Oh, the irony.
When has Turley ever admitted his false claims?
The media lies because their readers like to read lies.
Both examples were mean spirited and false. The media wouldn’t write these articles if there were negative consequences.
Lefties like these articles and the media caters to them. Tells us a lot about the left.
Republicans like this type of articles too, but we go to the Babylon Bee which is both openly satire and witty – which is not true of the media.
Lefties support a culture of mendacity.
monumentcolorado, quote something from Kessler’s article that you claim is false. If you can’t, you should retract your claim that his column was false.
“Republicans like this type of articles too, but we go to the Babylon Bee”
Yep, you never find false or misleading discussions on Fox, in the Gateway Pundit, and so forth.
Turley: “The result is that divisions are fueled by the media and the public has no source that is generally trusted as a neutral and honest news source.”
When you refer to the “media,” does that include your network Fox News? If so, can you find anything worth criticizing about Fox, Newsmax, OAN, WorldNet Daily, or Infowars?
JS
There you go again: “But the right…”.
Try thinking about what Turley said.
You may be right about other media, but Turley wrote an accurate and necessary post.
When you ignore and deflect the truthful points that Turley made, you reinforce the Left’s reputation for mendacity.
“Turley wrote an accurate and necessary post.”
But Turley’s post was not fully accurate. Can you admit that?
Turley FALSELY claimed that “the Washington Post … claimed (but failed) to show false elements to [Sen. Scott’s] “cotton to Congress” life story.” Kessler never said that Scott’s claim was false. Kessler said that there was more to the story, which is true.
A
You have a habit of disparaging any post that isn’t written the way that you would like it to be written.
Leave your control tendencies for a moment and read what Turley wrote.
If you still can’t understand, then I can’t help you.
“read what Turley wrote.”
I did!
I even quoted some of it in my response to you.
Apparently you can’t admit that you were wrong when you claimed that Turley’s post was “accurate.”
“Kessler said that there was more to the story, which is true.”
Some cannot see the implication of 2+2.
I dare you to quote something from Kessler’s column on “Scott that claimed (but failed) to show false elements to his ‘cotton to Congress’ life story.”
I dare you to see more than a brown spot on the cow.
What cow?
That is a reference to Analytic philosophy, of which you are a poster child. That philosophy has shrunk your intellectual perspective to staring at a spot on a cow, while ignoring the existence of the cow.
“Spot” = minutiae. “Cow” = broader issues.
I can see both.
Whether JT himself corrects his own false claims IS a broader issue.
You’re looking at the wrong cow.
Your opinion. According to you, what is the “right” cow, and why do you think there is only one “right” cow?
My opinion is that there are lots of important broader issues, and hypocrisy is one of them.
Anonymous the Stupid, I said just a minute ago you have a deficient education. That is why you require others to place the questions in perspective