Skip to content

Why Do Americans Find It Harder to Believe in Liberal Press?

¿Por qué los americanos cada vez creen menos en la prensa liberal?

Leer en Español

[Leer en español]


Americans are finding it harder to believe the liberal press. And it is not because of “disinformation campaigns” by “the right,” but because of the political actions of the left.

Awards for spreading false information

When Donald Trump challenged the awarding of Pulitzer Prizes to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their investigative reporting on alleged collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia, it had become clear that the NYT and WP’s misnamed “investigative reporting” was a blatant disinformation campaign that is now thoroughly discredited. The Pulitzer Committee still refuses to actually admit that those “investigative” reports were merely spreading falsehoods for campaign purposes.

That campaign to discredit Trump continued with the “Steele Dossier,” a composite of former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, funded by the Hilary Clinton campaign-linked research firm FusionGPS and promoted in Democratic Party-friendly media by campaign lawyer Michael Sussman. It was leaked to the press in early 2017, shortly before Trump was sworn in as president, and allowed Democrats to launch Mueller’s Russiagate “investigation.” Among those involved would have been CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Director James Comey, who gave credence to the alleged authenticity of Steele’s forgeries.

Hunter Biden’s laptop cover-up

How can we forget the cover-up of the Hunter Biden computer scandal? On October 14, 2020, weeks before the presidential election, the computer comes to light in a New York Post story about possible influence peddling with senior intelligence officials in China, Russia, and Ukraine by presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son.

Hunter Biden’s computer with its allegedly incriminating information about business dealings with Beijing and Moscow was “debunked” by 51 former intelligence agents in a letter in which they claimed it had the classic hallmarks of a Russian disinformation operation. But the computer and its contents were real, and those “experts” knew it. The New York Post‘s investigative reporting was temporarily discredited, and its dissemination on the Internet was censored by the major social media platforms. A year and a half after the election, the facts were finally accepted. The computer does belong to Hunter Biden and the information is real.

January 6 Committee

Now we have the January 6 Committee, an “investigative” effort that is nothing more than a “third impeachment attempt” setup. The purpose would be to prevent Trump from running for the Presidency again. And the default outcome would be for Trump to be found “guilty” of anything. In order to form a 100% anti-Trump committee, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vetoed the committee appointments of Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan. As a result, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy withdrew his five Republican nominees to the committee. And during the January 6 hearings, no witnesses in Trump’s defense, no cross-examination, and no exculpatory evidence was allowed.

The big “news” in the American liberal press has been the “investigation” of a committee that prefers not to see General Keith Kellogg’s July 29, 2022, tweet, claiming that on January 3, 2021, Trump, in front of witnesses, had already ordered the “necessary troops” for January 6 in the presence of Kellogg himself.

A committee that refuses to review why Pelosi would have rejected requests for increased security for the Capitol. And, above all, as attorney Mark Levin explains, a committee that pretends to pretend a trial without the right to a defense in a Congress that lacks authority, constitutionally limited to the Judiciary for a criminal investigation. For that “press,” however, Trump has to be “guilty” of January 6 through “evidence” such as the award-winning “investigations” of the NYT and the WP, or the lies of “51 intelligence experts” about Hunter Biden’s computer.

Guillermo Rodríguez is a professor of Political Economy in the extension area of the Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences at Universidad Monteávila, in Caracas. A researcher at the Juan de Mariana Center and author of several books // Guillermo es profesor de Economía Política en el área de extensión de la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administrativas de la Universidad Monteávila, en Caracas, investigador en el Centro Juan de Mariana y autor de varios libros

Leave a Reply