Anonymous sources are tricky enough, but journalists simply have no business contriving dramatized scenes with dialogue and characters — describing their innermost thoughts and feelings with no attribution whatsoever. To do so is inherently deceptive.
Some people think about foreign relations the way they think about football, with the U.S. as the home team. But sometimes there aren’t any victories.
The “Freedom Caucus” not only can’t govern, they don’t appear to believe in governance. If they understood the first thing about the U.S. Constitution they profess to revere, they’d recognize that it was purposely crafted to frustrate radicals like them.
Candidate Trump and former Governor Palin are complaining about “political correctness,” the supposedly liberal sin of being too polite to tell the unvarnished truth. Have I given offense? Oh, I do hope so.
If one were of a low and suspicious nature regarding The New York Times’ historically inept Washington Bureau, one might suspect yet another example of the “Clinton Rules” — that is, a shaky allegation unsupported by facts.
Has any murdering terrorist ever failed more dramatically than Dylann Storm Roof? Intending to start a race war, he succeeded only in shocking the moral conscience of the state and nation.
The swirl of innuendo and accusation currently dogging the Clintons is nothing more than conspiracy theories touted by the same newspapers that promoted the Whitewater hoax and cheered on Kenneth Starr.
Once somebody like Tom Brady has been targeted for something like “Deflategate,” it’s almost impossible for them to get even-handed treatment in the media.
The media coverage of “Clinton Cash,” shows that old the “Clinton rules” are back: all innuendo and guilt-by-association, murky insinuations and few facts.
Is there an element of calculation in Hillary Clinton’s latest listening tour? Sure. But if she truly listens, does that make her more or less “authentic” ?
The Republican right accuses every American president who negotiates an arms pact with our putative enemies of weakening national security. And they are always wrong.
The magazine and its editors made themselves willing, if not downright eager, parties to a hoax — and not a terribly sophisticated hoax at that.
What’s so insidious about “religious liberty” statutes as written, and why they cannot be permitted to stand, is that they would give zealous individuals and private businesses near-dictatorial powers with no legal recourse.