When it comes to political candidates, the media has maintained a starkly different set of standards for conservative and liberal politicians. Republicans are scrutinized at length. When such political leaders turn out to be squeaky clean, the liberal mainstream media works to make mountains out of molehills.
“Did you hear that Marco Rubio has a speedboat? You know, in Florida…”
“Did you know that Ted Cruz’s college roommate doesn’t like him?”
However, for liberal politicians, the standard is remarkably different.
“Why won’t Republicans just accept the demonstrably false Benghazi narrative and stop persecuting Hillary Clinton?”
“Did Hillary violate national security thousands of times? Who cares? Let’s focus on Donald Trump’s hair!”
Nowhere is this shameful lack of journalistic ethics more apparent than in the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy the media adopted regarding Barack Obama’s history in 2008. With a devoutly communist mother and father and a shady history of associating with domestic terrorists and radicals, Obama’s history served as a series of bright red flags that would indicate that he is unfit to be president.
Still, any and all inquiries into his past were treated as racist attacks to discredit a man whose supposed greatness was beyond reproach.
Now that Donald Trump has emerged as the Republican frontrunner, however, the media is clamoring for thorough investigation of The Donald’s past and selling it as a journalistic imperative.
The effort to shine a light on every corner of Trump’s life has reached a fever pitch and the notoriously-liberal Washington Post has even crafted a journalist team of 20 reporters to investigate Trump.
Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward revealed that the Post will be looking for dirt and planning a book.
“There’s a lot we don’t know,” he stated. “We have 20 people working on Trump, we’re going to do a book, we’re doing articles about every phase of his life.”
But don’t worry, Woodward also maintained that they were looking into Hillary Clinton’s conduct as well. However, regarding the email scandal, the biased “journalist” that once served as a beacon of truth during the Nixon era explained,
“I don’t think anyone feels that there was intent on her part to distribute classified information in a way that was illegal or jeopardized security.”
To be clear: it is true that the mainstream media did a poor job vetting Trump during the primary. Outlets focused on contemporary comments and did not shine a light on Trump’s past in the evident hopes that there would be time for that later after Trump bested that oh-so-radical Ted Cruz who is absurd enough to believe in constitutional principles and limited government.
Trump should be investigated. In fact, Trump should have been investigated.
What remains outrageous, however, is the conspiratorial efforts of multiple media outlets to hone their focus on the Republican nominee after he became the presumptive nominee and the complete unwillingness to offer vaguely-similar scrutiny to Clinton’s incredibly shady background.
Further, this bias is even more evident when we consider that eight years after his election, we still know very little about Barack Obama’s radical, anti-American past and, worse yet, the media feels entirely okay with that.
If they dig enough, it’s likely that the journalist hitmen will find some shady real estate dealings. However, it’s highly unlikely that Trump was ever best friends with a domestic terrorist (which, apparently, is not a deal-breaker for the American people when deciding who to elect as president).