MSM doesn’t want to discuss “improper activity” by members of the Obama admin that most in the media “like and admire”
On today’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough argued that the MSM is failing to cover the story of the Obama admin “unmasking”and leaking the names of Trump campaign people caught up in the intercepts of Russians.
According to Scarborough, 95% of the story is the attempt by the Russians to influence the election. But that still leaves the 5% that the MSM is ignoring because the people unmasked were disliked, and in the case of Michael Flynn, “loathed” by the media. In contrast, said Scarborough, the improper activity was “by people who, let’s face it, most of the people in the media like and admire.”
So Scarborough admits that there is real media bias at work here. It’s also notable that Scarborough says the “improper activity” was by people in the Obama admin that the MSM “likes and admires.” That suggests that he and others have a good idea of just who those people in the Obama admin involved in the unmasking and leaking were. Let’s name names.
Note: for years, Scarborough has caricatured conservative bloggers as people in their mothers’ basement covered in Cheeto dust. He broke it out again this morning, suggesting those were the people interested in this 5% story. For the record: I’m not in the basement. I’m in the attic. And that’s not Cheeto dust. Those are Twinkie crumbs.
Note segundo: Governments are constantly trying to interfere in elections in other countries. President Obama, for example, did what he could to defeat Bibi Netanyahu. But if the Obama admin was unmasking and leaking to the press the identities of Trump campaign people caught up in intercepts, that is, IMHO, a BFD.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Right now this morning, though, I’m just trying to investigate, just want to dig in to what the Trump people, their claims, and let’s say that’s only 5% of the story. It’s still 5% of the story.
And that’s why I’m asking you that story: do they have a point?
. . .
I want to be very clear, though. The incidental collection is not illegal.
STEVE RATTNER: It’s not illegal!
JOE: What would be illegal, and what some people inside the intel community have told me: come on, you’ve got to focus a little bit on this is, the improper unmasking of American citizens could be a real problem.
MICHAEL SCHMIDT [NY Times reporter]: And in Flynn’s case that happened. That is true. That is true.
JOE: There is no doubt that if Flynn were not as loathed as Flynn was loathed, and this happened to somebody else: let’s say it happened to Colin Powell, Washington would be on fire right now.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Oh my God.
JOE: And charges would be dropped [brought.] And we have to look at that as reporters. The unmasking and also the leaking of this information also. Those are problems.
RATTNER: That’s fair. But remember the 95/5 ratio in terms of —
JOE: I do. But here’s my point: nobody’s looking at the 5%. We’re all looking at the 95%. We have to look at the whole story. We’re not looking at the whole story. The 5%.
. . .
JOE: I want everybody to remember this morning. As the Cheetos dust is flying in the basements—their mothers’ basement, as they sit in underwear, with their stomach going over. I want you guys to understand again: it’s a 96/5 issue. The lead story is the Russians tried to influence our election. It is frightening. They’re trying to destroy our democracy. But that does not give us a free pass to ignore what happened in 5% of the story, just because we don’t like the principals who got caught up by improper activity from people, from people: who let’s face, most of the people in the media like and admire. That’s what I’m saying! That is what a newspaper ombudsman should do.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.