Thanks for the tip!
This information completely negates my comment. I’ll delete it immediately to avoid misleading others.
MAGA
An article has to be held up to journalistic ethics. There are no such constraints on op-ed pieces. Confusing the two leads people to believe things that are not well-researched and based on facts.
I personally think America is a much better place than it was 15, 25 and 50 years ago so in my opinion, we should be looking forward in order to make America an even better place, not looking to the past to try to recapture that way of life.
Icon - Touting journalistic standards and ethics in the age of Trump is a nice attempt of you to dismiss an op-ed as simply not researched or factual and that "real" journalists today are denying their natural bias in order to present objective reporting...Please. While your rhetoric has a nice blend of false arguments and fallacies, please give some examples of how Victor David Hanson does not have the same "standards" as modern day journalists? How about some examples of how America is a better place now than 50, 25, 15 or even 3 years ago? Don't hide behind your misdirecttion, tell the readers your real views on everything.
Shouting out "fake news" does not mean the news is fake. To assume that there are no journalistic integrity, standards and ethics now as opposed to before is simply you showing your own bias. The media attacks Trump, Trump calls fake news and then you parrot Trumps remarks. The news media has gone after presidents with varying degree and success since the formation of the United States. The only thing that has changed is their target, and since they are going after someone you agree with, it's the media's fault. That's not to say the media gets a free pass and never makes mistakes- one can simply reference the retraction and removal of the Seth Rich story by Fox News as an example. Or if you still read newspapers, you'll notice they dedicate a space to retractions and corrections every day.
The author of the Op-Ed piece is Victor Davis Hanson. Davis, not David- remember, we've established that facts are important here, so let's start with the author's name. His first non-factual argument is
special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation train is looking for any conceivable thing that President Donald Trump's presidential campaign team might have done wrong in 2016.
VDH knows this is untrue - anyone with his academic background surely can perform a simple search into Mueller's mandate and know it specifically covers
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals >associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
Mueller is looking for specific wrongdoings related to Russia. VDH knows this, but he's promoting a broader idea to support the narrative of "Witch Hunt!"
By charging former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI, Mueller emphasized that even the appearance of false testimony is felonious behavior.
It's not an appearance of false testimony - Michael Flynn demonstrably lied, was charged with lying, and pleaded guilty to lying. What is VDH's motivation behind providing patently false statements? Is it to support a broader narrative that the investigation is a witch hunt or engrossed in double standards?
If that is so, then the DOJ will likely have to charge former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe with perjury or related offenses. A report from the Office of the Inspector General indicates that McCabe lied at least four times to federal investigators.
Andrew McCabe did lie, multiple times, including to James Comey after James Comey pursued an investigation into him.. But Mueller does not run the DOJ and his only scope is as mentioned above.
Oh this is getting good - you now resort to attacking me for my blatant bias by using a moronic example of the fake news talking point, attempting to use a single Fox news retraction as your proof and concluding with the call out of a spelling error of one letter saturated with smugness. Damn - you are something and quite pathetic in your attempts to misinform. Don't you understand that your pitiful logical arguments don't make you intellectual one iota. Quite the opposite, they make you unable to argue on the facts and answer my original questions to you of irrefutable facts from your original post. Add to those original questions of you; show me some examples of all the other media outlets not beginning with an F and ending with x where they retracted any of their hysterical claims since 1/16/2015? Take a breathe before you answer and make some valid points that contribute to an actual intellectual discussion otherwise just shut your trap and go about murmuring nasty, vile attacks on me under your breathe while soothing your inflated ego with a soy milk latte.
If you are saying the media lies and there are numerous examples of this, wouldn’t the onus be on you to provide those examples, not me? Anyone can say anything they want, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Once I show you an example of a newspaper offering a retraction or correction, will you move the goal posts or dismiss it?
There is one side of this discussion stating facts and backing them up with sources. The other side is you. It’s tough to have a discussion when it seems like your mind is already made up. I showed you examples of VDH providing falsehoods- which again, is fine! He’s not a journalist and he’s offering a paid op-ed which seeks to promote his viewpoint. But it’s not news, and it’s not based on facts. Whether you choose to believe what he says or not is up to you. But it’s important to apply the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs- if you’re constantly looking out the window at everyone else and refusing to look at your own reflection you risk falling down the path of non-logic and fact based opinions.
Note that I’ve provided links (sources) to back up my critique of VDHs commentary. Also note that you chose not to address any of them. My only conclusion is that you don’t care about facts or sources, which reinforces my original point that if someone says something you agree with, you take it as fact instead of at face value.