Intelligence Leaks and Our Hypocritical Press
A Harvard study published May 18 reveals what thoughtful Americans already knew: Extreme anti-Trump bias runs rampant in corporate media.
The study found that CNN, CBS, and NBC produced more than 90 percent negative coverage during Trump's first 100 days, followed by the New York Times at 87 percent, and the Washington Post, 83 percent. Only Fox News offered close to balanced coverage with 52 percent negative coverage.
That explains why the week was filled with over-the-top reporting about President Trump sharing sensitive intelligence with Russian officials visiting the White House. Reportedly, the disclosure included information that ISIS has developed a way to mask bombs inside laptop computers that can slip undetected through airport screening.
Russia is a lot of things, but in the case of ISIS, Russia in our ally.
The overdramatic hype about Trump doing what every president before him has done to share information with an ally to prevent a terror attack is a head-scratcher to those who recall the events of September 11, 2001 as a bad thing.
We are aware of these details thanks to an agenda-driven media lacking discretion and leakers lacking a conscience. Who in their right mind would leak to the public information that burns intelligence sources? It's obvious there is no longer an ethical code by which most of the press abides.
Those whispering secrets to the wind do so for a reason.
Given the unprecedented volume of leaks and the Obama administration's lack of integrity, someone should re-sweep the White House for bugs.
If it is "treasonous" for the president to share information to protect lives with an ally behind White House closed doors, then what shall we call it when a blabbermouth leaks this sensitive information to media organizations, which in turn proverbially broadcasts it with a bullhorn?
This is not about the First Amendment; we're talking about discretion.
It's also about intent. If anonymous sources are not authorized to speak publicly about intelligence matters but share them with the media, we should focus on prosecuting both the leaker and culpable media.
At the very least, fed-up Americans should cancel subscriptions to the Washington Post and New York Times and stop watching news channels that care more about destroying the president than they do about protecting American lives.
Sure, Trump's methods might be questionable, but what's not in dispute is his pure-hearted desire to keep Americans safe.
The same media in full throttle to destroy Donald Trump performed journalistic backflips to protect the proverbial WikiLeaks of all presidential administrations, the Obama administration, which sprung so many leaks even Flex Seal wouldn't help.
Leaks such as the time the Obama administration put a proverbial target on Navy SEAL Team 6 operators' backs when it leaked key operational details about the Osama bin Laden raid, blabbing about SEAL Team 6's participation. To this day, family members blame the Obama administration for what they believe was retaliation when the Taliban later downed a helicopter in Afghanistan which killed 30 soldiers, including 15 SEAL Team 6 members.
In 2012, Obama leaked sensitive details about an "underwear-bombing" plot and the mission was forced to a standstill because of that leak, which former House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers suggested was utilized to generate positive press and boost Obama's reelection chances.
The media also snoozed as the pantsuit queen they pre-crowned as president was caught transporting classified emails on an illegal server hidden in a bathroom. It was "nothing to see here" even when evidence unfolded about a complex scheme to conceal or destroy emails and burn or hide potentially damning daily calendar entries.
Every administration has intelligence leaks. The current leaks are due to a convoluted effort intended to hurt President Trump, while Obama's leaks were about making him look good. What they have in common is the press involvement which ends up potentially endangering human life.