Malpractice is generally called professional negligence. According to the dictionary, the definition of the word “professional misconduct” is improper, illegal or negligent professional activity or treatment. The most common examples of professional misconduct are usually committed by a doctor, lawyer or government official.
It’s time to add major US media to the list. Their embezzlement is appalling.
Traditionally, the role of mainstream media in the United States has been to inform the American public. While there are certainly instances throughout history where a particular publisher or broadcaster has sought to sway public opinion, in general the rules of engagement in the United States have always been to provide accurate information. and complete and to let the public determine what this information meant. Over the past twenty years, however, the media have moved further and further away from these rules of engagement. The lines between hard news and editorial/opinion content are so blurred at this point that in many news sources you can’t tell the difference.
Broadcasters have defined their own specific advocacy positions, left or right of center. CNN went four years without being able to say a single positive word about Donald Trump. If he had cured cancer, they would have reported that Mr. Trump was laying off doctors. Fox News sees the world from the right side of the spectrum. Old traditional publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post make no effort to even feign impartiality. The Washington Post, for example, reportedly hired 20 researchers in 2016 specifically to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. They didn’t hire anyone to play that role in the Clinton campaign.
When the Supreme Court rules in June on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case, whatever the outcome, we can expect MSNBC and Fox News to have already determined their position. No matter what the Supreme Court says, MSNBC will conclude that Roe v. Wade should stay forever. Fox News will be quite sure that changing this precedent is not only acceptable, but also justified. Whatever argument the network comes out on the losing side, it will voice its outrage and cite national polls in support of its view. Predictable. Not particularly informative, but one could say that those on either side of the argument have a safe haven from which to get their information. Frankly, this is a ridiculous argument, but we are told that the world needs safe spaces.
The big question is when does policy advocacy cross an even more dangerous line? Is it acceptable for a media outlet to intentionally suppress the truth, simply because it serves its “team”?
Watergate is widely regarded as the biggest scandal in modern American presidential politics. The genesis of the Watergate scandal was a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office building in June 1972. The short version is that the failed burglary was an attempt by the Nixon campaign to gain insight into the Democrat . game plan for the presidential campaign that year. Then the whole team, including President Nixon, lied about it.
Watergate is so well recognized as America’s greatest political scandal that almost every major issue since has been labeled with some version of “-gate” and the public immediately recognizes the term as an issue. Reagan had Irangate. Bill Clinton had Monicagate. Trump had Russiagate.
The latter, Russiagate, refers to President Donald Trump and allegations that he had nefarious ties to Moscow. First, during the 2016 campaign, came the Steel dossier, a dossier which alleged that Donald Trump had coasted with Moscow prostitutes in the most obnoxious way imaginable. He also claimed to have evidence that Mr. Trump coordinated with the Kremlin to try to influence the outcome of the US election (and we all know how influential the Russian government is with the typical US voter) . Hillary Clinton also pushed, and the mainstream media helpfully repeated, allegations that the Russians stole and leaked DNC emails that showed Clinton herself and DNC leaders in an unflattering light.
The Trump/Russia connection made little sense and had even less factual evidence to back up the outlandish claims, but America’s leftist, Hillary-loving, Trump-hating media fanned the flames, repeating the sweeping allegations over and over again.
When Trump shocked the world and beat Hillary, the Russian narrative was not abandoned. In fact, it was accelerated and eventually clogged up much of the political bandwidth that would otherwise have been used by the new president to promote his agenda. Congress investigated, CNN investigated, all the news was commented on, and who could forget the Mueller report?
Robert Mueller was director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013 and was chosen as special counsel to investigate the Trump/Russia allegations. He assembled a team of sixteen lawyers to oversee the various aspects of the investigation and collate the results of their investigation. Thirteen of the sixteen were registered Democrats according to the voting records. Three had no party affiliation. None were Republicans. Despite the perceived bias, two years of research and more than $30 million in expenses, the Mueller team found no connection between Trump and Russia. Nothing. Zipper. Nothing.
During that two-year period, however, a person couldn’t watch eight minutes on a cable news channel without mentioning the Trump Russia story. Virtually every media reported daily that the Trump Russia story was the biggest political scandal since Watergate.
The irony of this comparison is that last week, when Special Counsel John Durham, tasked since 2020 with finding the origins of Russia’s false narrative, published facts implicating Clinton’s presidential campaign in fabricating and spreading of the entire hoax, the mainstream media yawned.
If Watergate, a poorly executed burglary, was the worst scandal in US presidential political history, how could the US media ignore allegations by a US attorney, currently serving as a special prosecutor, that in 2016, a presidential candidate’s campaign paid for the fabricated Steele dossier, arranged to have it delivered to Senator John McCain, and arranged to get it into the hands of the FBI? Additionally, Hillary’s team paid to infiltrate the computer servers of Trump Tower (and later the White House itself) for the express purpose, in Mr. Durham’s words, “to establish” an inference” and a “narrative” then linking candidate Trump to Russia.” His report also states that Clinton lackeys then passed the information on to the CIA and FBI in an effort to get them to legitimize the false claims.
Durham’s filing in federal court is unambiguous. It contains specific allegations. He talks about specific, documented payments by the Clinton campaign. It refers to specific emails and correspondence and specific language. What the special counsel explained is literally to spy on Trump’s house, his business and the White House.
As you can imagine, Donald Trump thinks this is a big deal. “This is a scandal of far greater scope and scale than Watergate and those who were involved in this spy operation and knew about it should face criminal charges. “, Mr. Trump said. The former president, well known for using inflammatory hyperbole, later called the actions a betrayal.
This time, President Trump’s comments are not hyperbole. It’s about the money. If the allegations are true, that is, if there was spying on the executive office of the President of the United States in an attempt to gather information for the purpose of overthrowing the presidency, that’s pretty much a classic example of betrayal.
Kash Patel was the chief investigator of “Russiagate” under House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. Appearing on Fox News shortly after the Durham filing, Patel said the filing “shows that Hillary Clinton’s campaign directly funded and ordered her lawyers at Perkins Coie to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia”.
If what Mr Durham says is true, it makes Watergate look like a petty crime. If what Mr. Durham and his team believe can be proven by the facts, Hillary Clinton and her campaign have executed a criminal conspiracy to steal the presidential election and later destroy the presidency of her nemesis, Donald Trump.
This is really great news. Unless it’s not.
In the days following Mr. Durham’s deposition, the New York Times had no story, nor did the Washington Post. It didn’t warrant CNN or MSNBC’s attention. Even the Associated Press, which has nearly 250 news outlets worldwide and serves nearly 100 countries, did not consider the US special adviser’s allegations of a criminal conspiracy in the US federal election newsworthy. oldest democracy in the world.
It is professional misconduct. The Trump Russia allegations were essentially the only news for two years, but when the origins of this story turn out to have been fabricated and broadcast by his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, is there anything to see?
Defending a political candidate or issue while impersonating news is poor journalism, but unfortunately there is a market for it. Completely ignore Federal Court filings regarding the potential conspiracy of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign? This is not advocacy. It is an intentional fault. It is intentionally withholding information from the public because it may not fit some general political math. It’s dishonest. It’s negligent. At best, he is incompetent.
The editors of the various mainstream media have to look in the mirror and determine if they really intend to report the news. Anything less than digging into the details of Hillary Clinton’s campaign espionage and conspiracy, no matter where those facts lead, and sharing that information with the American public, deliberately exercises media malpractice.
- Tim Constantine is a columnist for the Washington Times.