I took umbrage with the headline blasted across the front page of the May 17th issue of the Chicago Enquirer...oops I mean the Chicago Tribune today. Sorry about that slip, it's just that they are getting harder to tell apart. As is my wont, I let them know of my dissatisfaction. Since I doubt they are going to print a rebuttal or anything critical of their socialist leanings, I decided to make this the post for today. I would have put a link to the article, but they would charge you for it. You can more than likely get an indication of what the article was about just by my rebuttal, which of course, is free.
I was repulsed by the boldfaced headline for the May 17th Tribune edition – MEMO: TRUMP ASKED TO END FLYNN INVESTIGATION. I was infuriated after reading the article. It occurs to me, particularly since there is supposedly a “Standards Editor” that perhaps a review of the term “yellow journalism” might be in order:
yel·low jour·nal·ism noun: yellow journalism
journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration.
Origin 1895: from the appearance in an issue of the New York World of a cartoon in which a child in a yellow dress (‘The Yellow Kid’) was the central figure. The color printing was an experiment designed to attract customers.
In their clearly yellow journalistic piece, nowhere did Noah Bierman or Joe Tanfani mention anything regarding who the “close associate” of Mr. Comey might be, nor a copy of said memo. Did anyone at the Tribune question the authenticity of the “close associate” or even the possible traitorous act this person might be committing? How about the detail the original source for this leak was the New York Times, a far left-leaning source with a vendetta against the current administration? If there was any question about this, it did not appear in the column produced by your Washington Bureau.
Additionally, did it occur to anyone to question that if Comey felt he was being coerced by the President to drop the investigation, then why didn’t he report this to the Department of Justice, as was his lawful duty? Since he did not report this, would it not be incumbent upon a fair and balanced journalist to point out that Mr. Comey must have decided that there was no threat implied, but only a matter of conversation, if there was any such conversation at all? Or that Mr. Comey himself might be complicit, and only arranged to have this memo “leaked” because he had been fired?
But your organization didn’t require balanced reporting in this column. Instead you went with a front page trumpeted announcement in large bold font that would lead uninformed folks to presume the President did something illegal. Guilty! And if a few of those people actually read the article, there would be nothing to dissuade them from the presumption they would have obtained from the headline. There was no “other side” to this piece, and one would never know any different when reading the columns from Chapman, Page, Zorn, and Keillor, who are paid to pound relentlessly on Trump. Bet all your liberal elitist buddies smiled smugly at your determination to eat the elephant, one bite at a time.
I would like to point out, by helping to fuel the fire that so zealously exists on the left against anything Trump, there is virtually nothing getting done in Congress for the benefit of the country. Perhaps that is your direction. But, as your token conservative, John Kaas pointed out today, even if successful at removing Trump, the country is still going to be run by VP Pence. There will be no “do-over” to coronate Hillary.
Is all this because you didn’t endorse Mr. Trump? Or perhaps, because you predicted Hillary would win? Or have you decided your competition now lies with the tabloids, to be sold in the rack next to the National Enquirer at the checkout counter?
I’ll understand why this won’t be printed. But, have you folks no dignity?