Perched atop their moral high ground, the media continues to justify the silencing of former President Donald Trump by questioning the validity of what he may have to say — the one consistency here is that any talk about the 2020 election being “rigged” remains verboten in America today.
The Washington Post published a new investigative series this week about the January 6 protest at the U.S. Capitol, with the newspaper saying Trump was provided “a list of 37 findings reported as part of its investigation.” As expected, the former president had something to say about those findings, through a spokesman, which is presumably why he was given the findings. But the Post informed readers that it would not publish the entire response because it contained “unrelated, inflammatory claims.”
You know, because they are so trustworthy in being the arbiters of such determinations.
“The Washington Post published a three-part investigation that found that law enforcement officials failed to heed mounting red flags that there would be violence when Congress formalized the electoral college vote on Jan. 6,” the newspaper said in a statement. “The project documented the consequences of President Donald Trump’s inaction during the Capitol siege and examined how his false claims of election fraud helped incite the attack and, in the ensuing months, fostered a deep distrust of the voting process across the country.”
Yep, no bias there. The Post said that its investigation “was based on interviews with 230 people and thousands of pages of court documents and internal law enforcement reports, along with hundreds of videos, photographs and audio recordings.”
“The Post provided Trump a list of 37 findings reported as part of its investigation,” the statement said. “His spokesman Taylor Budowich provided a lengthy written response that included series of unrelated, inflammatory claims that The Post is not publishing in full. In response to the investigation’s findings, Budowich said that the former president ‘greatly objected’ to all of them. He disputed The Post’s investigation as ‘fake news’ and falsely cast people who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 as ‘agitators not associated with President Trump.’ The statement repeated Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was rigged.”
The part of the statement the editors at the Post found acceptable to share is seen here:
“The media’s obsession with the January 6th protest is a blatant attempt to overshadow a simple fact: there is no greater threat to America than leftist journalists and the Fake News, which has avoided a careful examination of the fraudulent 2020 election. The media, just like the Democrats, do not want to see secure and honest elections. Instead of reporting the facts, outlets like the Washington Post sow division, hate, and lies, like it is doing with this story.”
“The media has failed to do its job, including truly exposing Silicon Valley for its role in illegally rigging the election with hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money–which is probably a gross underestimate. America is furious at the results of November 3rd and deserve answers. They deserve to protest and demand the truth from their Representatives. However, since the media isn’t asking the questions, it’s being left up to the people to seek the truth.”
There were plenty of Trump haters online who cheered the admitted censorship, justifying it in their minds by dismissing what Trump may have to say as being lies, or by declaring that they do not want to hear what he has to say. The slippery slope being acceptable because they see a political opponent as a potential threat or, in the case of some, because they don’t want to be bothered with having to discern the truth for themselves and are comfortable with the liberal media doing it for them.
Last week, The Wall Street Journal took serious heat for publishing a letter to the editor from Trump and responded by saying that they — egad! — “trust our readers to make up their own minds.”
“The progressive parsons of the press are aflutter that we published a letter to the editor Thursday from former President Trump, objecting to our editorial pointing out that he lost Pennsylvania last year by 80,555 votes,” the Journal said. “We trust our readers to make up their own minds about his statement. And we think it’s news when an ex-President who may run in 2024 wrote what he did, even if (or perhaps especially if) his claims are bananas.”
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
The longest-tenured writer at BizPac Review, Tom grew up in Maryland before moving to Central Florida as a young teen. It is in the Sunshine State that he honed both his passion for politics and his writing skills.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
