Accuracy in Media

According to Politico, the Rupert Murdoch media properties seem to be coordinating their coverage, moving closer to President Trump, and, in the process, losing their last shreds of credibility.

In the piece, Jason Schwartz accused the Murdoch properties of a coordinated campaign to distract from the president’s problems with the Russia investigation.

As far as having “come under fire,” Schwartz looked to a former editor now at the Columbia University School of Journalism, another now working for Fusion GPS, and a New York Times writer who says, “This is embarrassing for every good reporter at that paper.”

The piece says the New York Times “has in the past been a stern critic of Donald Trump, but in recent days has come under fire for pieces that critics say shift attention away from the president – with many people, including former staffers, left to wonder why.”

“After having generally avoided Trump’s efforts to de-legitimize democratic institutions,” the Journal, New York Post and Fox News seem to be almost in lock-step with their increased support for Trump, Schwartz said.

The Wall Street Journal called for Robert Mueller to resign over conflicts of interest, and an op-ed Sunday suggested Trump pardon everyone, including himself, involved in any way with Mueller’s investigation.

The New York Post made its own call for Mueller to resign, and, according to Politico, “Fox News personalities have beat a steady drum calling for attention to shift away from any investigation of Trump and toward Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.”

The Journal also called for an investigation into Democratic collusion with Russia, “a conservative talking point in the wake of a Washington Post report that Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for some of the opposition research that led to the infamous ‘dossier’ of anti-Trump information – but which made no suggestion of any collusion with Russia.”

A conservative talking point? No suggestion of any collusion with Russia? The story itself was a suggestion of collusion with Russia on the part of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

“The points made in the pieces in the Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch, not only tracked with White House talking points but were similar to those being hawked on other Murdoch properties, including the New York Post and Fox News,” the article stated.

The article even speculates on how Murdoch coordinates the coverage among his properties.

“It’s like mumbled phone conversations with [WSJ editor-in-chief] Gerry Baker or other conversations that you wouldn’t really know about,” an unnamed source said. “I think he puts his thumb on a lot of things or makes it known that he didn’t like certain stories or that kind of thing.”

The same anonymous editor also tells us “there is general flabbergastedness about the drift of the edit page” and that “what is fascinating to a lot of people is, why are they now coming around to being sycophants of Trump aping some of these things that are part of the Republican echo chamber?”

The “recent shift has raised flags,” Politico reported, but this seems to be the case only among anti-Trumpers. The story selection and general view of a conservative company is unsurprising. All Politico can do to criticize this is to collect complaints from reporters at liberal newspapers.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


Comments are turned off for this article.