Why?

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about President Trump’s briefing about the coronavirus. I didn’t watch all of the briefing, but I watched most of it. At one point there was a rather strange moment when President Trump realized that the person asking him a question worked for a news agency controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. What in the world was she doing in a White House briefing? Well, The Conservative Treehouse explains.

The article reports:

Remember when President Trump said the U.S. media were the enemy of the American people? Well, consider this… In another clear example of how the U.S. media will do anything in their effort to undermine President Trump, yesterday they held hands with Chinese communists.

ABC News chief Washington DC narrative engineer Jonathan Karl is the current rotating head of the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA).  The WHCA has a customary and traditional role of selecting the journalists who will participate in the White House daily briefing.

Yesterday WHCA head Jonathan Karl invited a known propagandist for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) into the briefing room to question President Trump.  However, President Trump immediately pegged the CCP propagandist and asked her directly

…That said, the bigger question should be asked of Jonathan Karl:  Why did the White House Correspondents Association intentionally invite a communist propagandist to attend the briefing?… Asking questions about a crisis the Chinese communists created?

Remember, Jonathan Karl, ABC News, is currently in charge of selecting journalists who will participate in the White House daily briefing. Why in the world would he invite someone from a totalitarian state known for lying and propaganda to participate?

President Trump’s briefings have been informative and optimistic. The questions asked by the press have been largely rude and irrelevant. It is becoming obvious that the press is using these briefings to search for a ‘gotcha’ moment. I am wondering if the President should end the briefings and simply replace them with fireside chats.

The Signs Were There–We Just Ignored Them

Kirsten Powers posted an article at the Daily Beast today entitled, “How Hope and Change Gave Way To Spying on the Press.” She does a very good job of explaining how we got from hope and change to threatening James Rosen with criminal prosecution for investigative reporting. Brit Hume pointed out on Special Report last night that in the past when the government pursued a leak, they prosecuted the leaker–not the reporter. It is very unusual to threaten to prosecute the reporter. I also should mention that the government’s invasion of Mr. Rosen’s privacy during this investigation is stunning.

So how did we get here?

Kirsten Powers explains:

It was 2009, and the new administration decided it was appropriate to use the prestige of the White House to viciously attack a news organization  – Fox News – and the journalists who work there. Remember, they had barely been in office and had enjoyed the most laudatory press of any new president in modern history. Yet, even one outlet that allowed dissent or criticism of President Obama was one too many. This should have been a red flag to everyone, regardless of what they thought of Fox News. The math was simple: if they would abuse their power to try and intimidate one media outlet, what made anyone think they weren’t next?

The article relates the various comments by administration spokesmen that Fox News was not a valid news outlet. It also points out that only one journalist questioned what was going on:

Yet only one mainstream media reporter – Jake Tapper, then of ABC News – ever raised a serious objection to the White House’s egregious and chilling behavior. Tapper asked future MSNBC commentator and then White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “[W]hy is [it] appropriate for the White House to say” that “thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a ‘news organization’?” The spokesman for the president of the United States was unrepentant, saying: “That’s our opinion.”

Obviously, they are entitled to their opinion. What they are not entitled to is to use the power of the government against a news organization that does not agree with everything they are doing.

The article goes on to cite the latest example of the White House targeting those news reporters that do not agree with their politics. Media Matters, a Democratic advocacy group, has launched a smear campaign against Jonathan Karl after his recent reporting on Benghazi. A group called Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has referred to Jonathan Karl as “a right wing mole at ABC News.” If you don’t tow the line, you must be a right wing mole. Right.

Kirsten Power rightfully concludes:

What all of us in the media need to remember – whatever our politics – is that we need to hold government actions to the same standard, whether they’re aimed at friends or foes. If not, there’s no one but ourselves to blame when the administration takes aim at us.

Enhanced by Zemanta