The Odd Unseriousness Of ‘Serious’ Journalism

Derek Hunter is correct about the unseriousness of ‘serious’ journalism:

Democrats, simply put, are not serious people. My 2-year-old has a calmer demeanor when one of her PJ Masks characters falls somewhere she can’t quite reach it than the average Democratic journalist or Member of Congress are when discussing the Trump administration.

But unserious people with serious power are a danger. These people have votes in Congress or millions of people who believe what they say, no matter how absurd, wrong, or biased they may be. When they add their twist to a story, it has the ability to become “truth” to their audience. That’s a lot of power.

You expect this from elected Democrats. They’re politicians. But journalists are supposed to be different.

So when the New York Times reports on a Department of Justice probe of the origins of the Russia hoax morphing into a criminal investigation, how it is framed is telling, and as important as the story itself. The way they chose to frame it was curious, to say the least.

“For more than two years, President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel closed it,” the Times story opens, as if a closed investigation could not be a hoax or how the whole thing came into being should not even be wondered about because it was over.

The “news” story continues, “The opening of a criminal investigation is likely to raise alarms that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies.”

“Likely to raise alarms” with who? Why? Who, after the promises made that were exposed as lies by the Mueller probe, wouldn’t want to know how it happened, if only to avoid it happening again?

Read more: Townhall

Image credit: