They believe media aren't comprehensively, blatantly anti-MAGA enough

SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY JWR UPDATE. IT'S FREE. (AND NO SPAM!) Just click here.

Hillary Clinton was asked the other day what unforeseen threats might be facing the country, and she went on a riff about how the "objective" media need to develop "a consistent narrative about the danger Trump poses."

If the term "objective" means anything, it would seem that outlets and reporters can either remain objective or develop and drive a negative narrative about a candidate they oppose.

Pick one.

As we all know, the press long ago chose the latter option, but there's still a vocal left-of-center contingent that believes that the media aren't comprehensively and blatantly anti-Donald Trump enough.

They are constantly working the refs, even though the refs are already wearing the jerseys of the home team and keeping their flags in their pockets almost no matter what its infractions.

According to their theory, the press needs to do more to highlight all the crazy things that Trump says, the assumption being that if the public learns more about them — or they are reported in a more alarmed tone — it will be a grievous political blow to him.

The media need to decide whether they really want to stop fascism in America.

The fact of the matter is that Trump already gets buckets of harsh and disapproving coverage, so it's not clear whether a few gallons more will make a difference one way or the other.

In a post titled "Legacy Media Is Failing Us Hard," substacker Jay Kuo complains of how the media covered Trump calling Kamala Harris "mentally disabled" at a Wisconsin rally.

This was a crude and unworthy insult that, as Kuo grudgingly ­ac­knowledges, got extensive coverage.

There were headlines all over the media about it. To cite just a few, "The Memo: Trump sparks new furor with attacks on Harris's mental capacity"; "Trump takes dark rhetoric to new level in final weeks of 2024 campaign: ANALYSIS"; "Donald Trump falsely calls Kamala Harris, Joe Biden ‘mentally impaired' again, ramping up attacks"; "Trump escalates attacks on Harris' mental fitness and suggests she should be prosecuted."

And Republicans were asked about it on Sunday shows.

The outrage level wasn't as high as that caused by other controversial Trump remarks, but it definitely rated somewhere on the Richter scale.

Still, Kuo was especially upset by a New York Times headline about Trump's speech, "Trump's Answer to Harris's Border Trip: Calling Her 'Mentally Disabled.' "

Doesn't the Times know that Trump's jibe wasn't really an answer?

But Kuo misses the critical tone of the headline, and it's not as though the content of the report was old-school, wire-service-style copy.

The Times called Trump's effort "a dark, often rambling speech lasting longer than an hour," containing a "startling series of broadsides in the midst of a presidential campaign, even for a candidate who seems to delight in offensive remarks."

The paper ran a follow-up, by the way, "Republicans Criticize Trump Over His Insults of Harris," and another piece mentioning the same rally, "Trump's Consistent Message Online and Onstage: Be Afraid."

Neither article, needless to say, was favorable.

For Kuo, though, so long as those articles don't use Trump's insults to establish that we are "facing down looming autocracy," they are inadequate to the moment.

Same with Trump's statement at the rally that migrants will break into your kitchen and cut your throat. This, supposedly, is a genocidal sentiment.

Michael Tomasky of the New Republic makes a similar point in a piece headlined "Oops, They Did It Again: The Mainstream Media Buries Trump's Outrage."

Of the offending comment, Tomasky writes, "Here's a man who wants to be the president of the United States saying of immigrants — all immigrants: women, children, old people, everyone — that they will invade your home and attack you in one of the most violent and painful (and terrifying) ways possible."

What he leaves out is that Trump was talking not about run-of-the-mill migrants but about murderers who have been let into the country, according to new numbers from ICE.

So he's accusing murderers of murderousness.

This could be really ascertained by watching the beginning of Trump's remarks.

Maybe you think that this is still an overly incendiary way to make the point, or that it's only right and humane to ignore migrant crime and instead to make a positive case for high levels of migration.

Yet that's not what the left-wing media critics are saying.

They are taking a deceptively edited clip from influencer Aaron Rupar, whom both Kuo and Tomasky cite as a model, that leaves out the context.

They then treat it as The Truth that nobody is getting from the rest of the media and insisting the outrage over it get turned up to 11.

In short, what they and the likes of Hillary are asking is that the media further immolate their credibility in the hopes of harming Trump.

Even a hint of real neutrality incenses them.

Dan Rather wrote a harsh critique of the CBS pledge not to fact-check the VP candidates in real time during the debate — a pledge that, as it turns out, the network's anchors didn't even adhere to.

In a post-debate harangue on MSNBC, Nicole Wallace seemed to be urging the moderators to go even further in their contemptuous opposition to JD Vance and drop the F-bomb in the course of rebutting the candidate's points.

All of this is of a piece with the left's willingness to pervert and undermine institutions in the hopes of stopping Trump.

Objectivity, credibility and professionalism are all worth sacrificing, so long as the media are serving the Prime Directive.

(COMMENT, BELOW)