When you follow any ongoing news story, especially one with Donald Trump at the middle of it, it's important to recognize patterns the media will use in establishing narratives. They will never officially tell you in a story that they're assuming a position that's oppositional to Trump, but you call tell whose side their on by comparing their language to what a lawyer would use in a courtroom.
Since Trump tweeted his accusation that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped, just about every media story on the matter (and most of the headlines) have used the phrase "without evidence" to describe Trump's claim. Why is that noteworthy? Isn't evidence important? Sure it is. But in all the years the media have been attributing statements to politicians in news stories, when did they start telling us on every single occasion if the politician provided "evidence". When Barack Obama claimed that voter fraud is rare, did they tell us he did so "without evidence"? Because he did. But they didn't say that. When Hillary claimed she had turned over all her work-related e-mails, did they report this statement as having been offered "without evidence"? Because it was. In fact, there was plenty of evidence that it was false. But all they did was report and attribute the statement.
A matter of their minimum responsibility, that's all they're required to do. They don't have to tell us Hillary's statement is true or false. They just have to tell us it came from her, and we can decide whether we believe it or not.
But when Trump makes a statement, the media's standard is totally different. They will either claim he spoke without evidence to back up his statement, or they will come right out and call his statement false.
And in the case of the Trump Tower wiretap matter, they are acting as Obama's lawyers. Consider the following passage from a story published today by CNN:
Trump created an uproar when he took to Twitter on Saturday to declare, without evidence, that Obama had the "wires tapped" in Trump Tower ahead of the election. The White House has declined to substantiate the President's claims, and a White House official told CNN that the theory reached Trump due to a Brietbart article circulating in the West Wing.
White House press secretary Sean #, speaking at the White House on Monday, did not offer evidence to back up the claims, but doubled-down, saying, "There's no question that something happened."
Defense attorney's case for Obama
Just within those two short paragraphs, there is a lot of language that makes the defense attorney's case for Obama.
Trump "created an uproar," which is entirely subjective statement. It was only an uproar to people who found it objectionable.
Trump made his declaration "without evidence," as if people regularly include "evidence" of the things they say in tweets.
CNN puts "wires tapped" in quotes. There is a reason for that. They're setting up a defense of Obama that any sort of surveillance other than wiretaps is fine because it wasn't specifically what Trump said.
CNN emphasis "in Trump Tower," which, to be fair, is what Trump said - but that wouldn't make the surveillance of Trump associates by any other method any less eye-raising.
# "did not offer evidence," again asserting the implication that this can't be true unless the White House tells us everything they know immediately.
# "doubled-down," which is what you say about someone you think is digging in on a lie or otherwise deepening his commitment to a bad direction.
All of this is intended to throw shade on the plausibility of Trump's statement. Nowhere in the story does CNN mention the FISA surveillance requests we told you about on Sunday. That is part of the story if you're an objective reporter trying to lay out all the facts. But if you're Obama's lawyer, why would you bring it up? You figure it's on the prosecution to do that, so you neglect to mention it.
Support Canada Free Press
They will parse language in an attempt to get Obama off on a technicality
Over the weekend, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post further established the prosecutor/defense roles by declaring that the "burden of proof" is on Trump. What does this mean? It means several things:
First, it means that the media will make absolutely no attempt to find information via its own reporting that might back up the idea that Obama or his Justice Department used their powers inappropriately against a political opponent. They will wait to see what Trump comes up with, but they will not chase it down themselves.
Second, it means that whatever Trump does come up with, they will attack - making every attempt to cast doubt on its viability or relevance.
Third, they will parse language in an attempt to get Obama off on a technicality. If it turns out Obama's DOJ sought FISA permission to surveil Trump and his team based on a very thin legal pretext - but they never actually installed a wiretap on the physical premises of Trump Tower - they will not scrutinize this action or demand that Obama prove he acted appropriately. Instead, they will simply say Trump failed to prove his exact claims, and they will declare Obama vindicated.
If the Obama Justice Department used a weak legal pretext to justify surveillance against Trump, that is a gigantic scandal. But it won't be treated that way, because the media have decided to be Obama's lawyers and treat Trump as if he is an overzealous prosectutor, or a racist cop. As you read the coverage of this whole thing, keep that in mind.
