A few months ago, I touched on the aspect of mud-slinging in the upcoming election cycle (Beginning a Season of Tar and Feathers, May 2018) and the pretzel logic of the media/journalists to assiduously apply new double-standards to all things Republican. Ignore it if the Democrat side does it; headline it if any Republican even thinks about it.

As we pass the torch into the New Year it is worth considering several of these episodes of the past and then consider the veracity of what passes for journalism today and in the future. Much needs to improve, though you would never know it from the narratives constantly promoted these days.

To establish the baseline, a “double-standard” is defined by Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary as,

“a situation in which two people, groups, etc., are treated very differently from each other in a way that is unfair to one of them”.

To be “unfair to one of them” seems rather narrow in scope as one recognizes that for a variety of reasons the method of application is via the news media, and the groups affected are not only those targeted for mistreatment, but the overall population (viewership/readership).  This happens because of the entrenchment of dishonesty within a supposedly neutral information gathering/disseminating organization.

Currently the news media is having a melt-down over the abrupt resignation (then apparent immediate replacement of) Secretary of Defense James Mattis. While I consider Mattis’ military record and published letter of resignation superb and reasonable, the way in which the media pundits are hand wringing over this gives new meaning to histrionics. Only the person doing the firing, President Trump, is different.

Previously, under President Obama, Marine Gen. Mattis was the head of Central Command, 2010-2013. As such he had responsibility for operations spanning Northeast Africa, the Middle East and Central and South Asia. As a veteran combat commander and careful tactician, he rankled certain civilians within the Obama administration who were promoting the impending Iran nuclear deal by asking the obvious question (“and then what?”) in response to their rote assurances. Political differences and his experience guiding a policy divergence back then gained their enmity. President Obama did not even bother to call General Mattis when he fired him.

Mattis was made aware that he was being fired –or “replaced” as the cover story was concocted—by an aide handing him a note from a Pentagon Press Release during a meeting.

Was this cause for a news frenzy, breathlessly ranting about the chaos in the White House or insulting behavior by the President? No. It was papered over very smoothly. The general continued on in active duty, clearly side-lined for political reasons that the press refused to report because it would have been critical of the Obama presidency and/or administration.

Now, as Secretary of Defense, Mattis, after publicly announcing his letter of resignation, is fired by President Trump and the journalists in the media, print and digital, have begun the running the-sky-is-falling stories as to how this is the worst thing since time began.

Why is the press coverage different? It is simply because the press covered for Barack Obama and hates Donald Trump. That is basically it, the double-standard exemplified.

Next up – The taxpayer funded Congressional slush fund that pays off victims of harassment (sexual and otherwise) by members, that we as peons may not ever know about in detail.

While the highly tainted Office of the Special Counsel under Robert Mueller squeezes former attorney Michael Cohen to plead guilty to a variety of his own crimes of tax evasion and bank fraud related to NYC taxi medallions, the press focuses on payments made by Cohen to porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

These were to enact a lesser version of what the Congressional payoffs do – creating “non-disclosure agreements.”  The OIC is now alleging that these payments were illegal campaign contributions by Cohen, made with Trump’s knowledge, before he ran for election.

Why is it that non-consensual events that occurred within the Congress and/or Senate get no wall-to-wall coverage by CNN, NPR, and the other networks? It is for the same reason that “journalists” Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer and others, plus media moguls Les Moonves and Harvey Weinstein, never got outed by their peers for years. The double-standard. Do we really need to go as far back as Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal and the claims that this was “a vast right-wing conspiracy” rather than a double-standard?  According to reports available, the Treasury slush fund used to pay off known claims –including sexual harassment—has forked over somewhere between $15 and $17 million to settle claims. If you haven’t heard anything from the accusers on Morning Joe & Mika or Rachel Maddow’s show it is likely because of non-disclosure agreements with the Treasury Department and Congress.

Because of the double-standard the press now uses you can be certain that not one of these members of Congress will be accused by OIC Mueller’s team of creating the basis for charges of illegal campaign contributions. Do you think that if any of the charges of harassment ever came out—and to be fair, from what we can know to date they are opaque at best—that they would not affect the re-election chances of these solons? So by the very nature of the payoffs these should also be considered illegal campaign contributions, right?

Another View is written on a rotating basis by a member of a group of conservative Midcoast citizens that meet to discuss issues they think are of public interest.