If media called Trump a liar, they must do the same for Biden’s corruption lies.

The Media’s Treatment of Trump ⁤and Biden: A Tale of Lies⁤ and Hypocrisy

In August of 2016, The New York Times did something rather unprecedented — the paper ⁤ran a front-page editorial by columnist Jim ​Rutenberg​ that stopped just short of‍ openly saying the media should openly oppose Donald Trump, regardless of journalistic‍ ethics.

According to Rutenberg, journalists who believed Trump‌ was “racist and ‌nationalist”⁢ would have to “throw out the textbook American journalism has ⁤been using for​ the better part of ‍the past half-century. … You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.”

Now, Rutenberg was greatly ⁢flattering himself and his journalistic peers by pretending that any vestigial attempts at objectivity in the American media were anything more than farce, ​and all but the most⁢ blinkered Americans knew it. Still, the⁣ shift in tone during the Trump years was palpable.

The Media’s Eagerness to ⁤Call Out Trump’s “Lies”

Perhaps the most visible ⁢sign was ⁢the media’s eagerness to call Trump a liar and to specifically call out his​ supposed⁤ “lies,” even to ⁤his face in⁢ real-time if necessary. The resulting coverage was something to behold. A Washington⁣ Post media column from⁣ 2019 took a rhetorical​ victory lap⁢ and rounded up just a few of the then-recent headlines about Trump’s presidency:

• CNN: “The Mueller report: A catalog of 77 Trump team lies and⁤ falsehoods.”
• Minneapolis Star Tribune: “President Trump lies to troops about pay raise.”
• Financial Times: “The real reason Donald Trump lies.”

And the list goes on.

The‍ Hypocrisy of the Media’s Treatment of Biden

Now, I don’t want to even go down the road of relitigating the veracity of various Trump statements. This has been debated ⁢and cataloged endlessly; Trump has⁤ lied. But I will say that there’s ⁣good reason why you don’t ‍throw around the word liar with such abandon. That’s because ascertaining what‌ constitutes a “lie” ​often depends on determining motive or circumstantial ⁤assessments that often reveal as much or more about the biases of the person making the accusation.

And the media was often so hysterical they‌ didn’t just throw out the journalism rulebook when it came to fairly evaluating Trump — Pulitzer Prizes for completely discredited Russia collusion accusations are pretty solid evidence ⁣of their inability to do that — they‍ threw out the logical one as well.

Which brings us to ​Joe Biden. It’s hard to ⁣think⁣ of⁤ a more categorical denial than the one Biden issued in August 2019 about his role in his⁤ son’s business dealings. “First of all, I have never discussed with my son, or my brother, or anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses, period…”

This ​was never remotely believable, but now⁤ the evidence is overwhelming.⁤ The National Archives recently released 5,400 emails⁣ from ⁢his time ⁣as vice president, where he ⁣was using pseudonyms to, among other ⁤things, communicate ‍with his⁣ son, Hunter Biden, about his ⁢questionable foreign business dealings. Devon Archer, Hunter’s business partner, has talked extensively and publicly ⁣about Joe Biden being ⁤involved in his son’s lucrative dealings with corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs and business deals tied to China’s repressive communist government.

Even the Democrat hacks in Congress, such as Dan Goldman whom corporate media called out‌ for misrepresenting what⁤ Archer said about Biden, now concede that Joe was playing along with his son to only sell the “illusion of access” rather than a blatant quid pro quo.

The Media’s Double Standard

On the question of motives and “quid pro quo,” the media hypocrisy is absolutely astounding. In his recent interview with ⁣Fox News, Shokin asked a pretty salient question: “The fact that ‌Joe ‌Biden gave away $1 billion‍ in U.S. money in exchange for my‌ dismissal, my firing, isn’t that alone a case of corruption?”

“No, it’s‌ not. U.S. foreign aid is often conditioned on countries taking official actions that the U.S. government regards as important. That’s especially the case, as⁢ it was in Ukraine, with rooting out corruption,” the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake retorted in a column earlier this week.

How’d⁣ that defense work out for the Trump‌ White House? I seem to recall that the Democrats didn’t buy that claim, proceeded to allege quid pro quo was occurring, and impeached Trump over it. All while much of the media establishment was cheerleading.

But consider for a moment the irony that, whether or not the issue of foreign aid to Ukraine‍ was being used as leverage, Trump was asking about an investigation ⁣into Biden family corruption in Ukraine that now appears wholly merited. How do we‌ reconcile that? It’s all a‌ matter of disingenuous relativism.

“Mulvaney was right,” ⁢says Blake. ‍“But the issue with Trump was whether he was leveraging Ukraine for personal gain — ‌and there was more evidence that this was true of⁤ him than of Biden. Trump wanted‌ Ukraine to announce it was investigating Hunter Biden ‍at a time⁣ when Joe Biden​ was Trump’s likeliest 2020 election opponent.”

First off, this ⁤isn’t a contest here​ — if Trump was seeking to exploit a corruption investigation ​to help him⁤ politically,‌ that was enabled by the fact that Joe Biden and his son were indeed corrupt. They were able ‌to paint Trump’s suggestive words on the call as outrageous in large part because everyone was still committed to this notion that Biden was kept apart from ⁢his ⁢son’s shady business dealings. While that‍ was always dubious, the charade is quite definitively over.

Regardless, what on earth does Blake mean when he says there was “more evidence that‍ this was true of him than of Biden”? Since nothing ever⁤ came to fruition, whatever nefarious​ things it is assumed⁤ Trump was trying to put in motion‌ on that phone call are premised on a heavy amount of assumption and interpretation. ‌With Biden, we now have emails, ‌bank transfers, photos of the vice president ⁣apparently dining with Hunter’s foreign partners, and ⁤credible testimony from those in the know, all pointing to the fact he was enabling and an active participant in his son’s corrupt deals.

Time and again, the default assumption for Trump is corrupt ‌motives, where Biden gets⁤ the benefit of the doubt to an absurd degree. ‌The idea‍ that it was necessary to call Trump a liar in⁢ no way precludes doing the same to Biden who ⁣is a world-class liar in‍ his‌ own right. However, ⁣if the press were to take the most obvious reading of Biden’s ‍motives, they would have to conclude that ⁤the man is a corrupt and brazen liar. They would⁤ have to, according to ‍the ⁤new rulebook, “move ⁤closer to being oppositional.” But that’s not going to happen because political reporters are not a particularly ⁢consistent or principled bunch.

Biden’s Troubling History of Lies

Of course, the problem with Biden’s lying goes well beyond the issues of foreign corruption; the issue⁣ of character and personal⁢ flaws was one that was frequently hung around Trump’s ‌neck. Again, I fail to see how‍ Biden faces a different⁣ standard. His issues with lying ⁣might be the worst of any politician ​of the modern era.

He’s blatantly lied about so many things it’s​ difficult to keep track, but it’s not just the quantity — it’s the abhorrent ⁤specifics of some of these lies. After he lost‍ his wife and young daughter in a tragic car wreck, he went around saying that ​the ‍guy driving the truck that ​hit them “drank his‌ lunch.” Not only ⁢was the guy sober, but he did everything⁢ he could to ​administer aid at the scene and⁣ was haunted by the accident for the rest of his life.

He’s repeatedly claiming he was involved in the civil rights movement when he was not — and earlier this week,⁣ he made⁤ the absurd claim he “literally, not figuratively” talked former South Carolina Sen. Strom⁣ Thurmond into voting for the Civil Rights Act. Biden didn’t get elected to the Senate ⁢until eight years⁤ after⁢ the Civil⁣ Rights Act passed, and in any event, Thurmond voted against it.

We’ve barely scratched the surface of the lies here. So how exactly do the media cover an inveterate pathological liar who will say anything to anyone —⁤ including exploiting ⁢the tragic deaths of‍ his wife, 13-month-old child, and son, as well as pandering to perceived racists — that he thinks will further his political career?

Ultimately, it’s hard to tell whether voters have decided Biden’s lies don’t matter when so many people are working to ⁤obscure them. But heading into 2024, it does provide⁢ a simple litmus test for who to take⁣ seriously. Shouting “What about⁤ Trump?” is not ⁣an acceptable way to avoid acknowledging the obvious extent of Biden’s corruption and his rank dishonesty about it. And anyone who is‌ unwilling to plainly⁢ state that Biden’s a particularly troubling liar‍ is someone who is putting‍ politics over facts, and they cannot be trusted.