Accuracy in Media

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) took the media to task for what he felt is their reluctance to tell the public anything important.

Rubio made his remarks during a speech at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday:

It’s a lot easier to say, for example, why do we give all this money to NATO and these other people that we’re protecting do not. And it’s easier to say that than to explain what would happen if you didn’t. And so that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. I just think it takes time and, quite frankly, to be fair today’s press that covers this process is not interested in covering any of that.

Rubio was referring to the media’s coverage of GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump repeatedly saying that NATO is “obsolete,” and that the U.S. should pull out of the 28-nation alliance because it costs us a fortune, with little direct benefit.

The former Republican presidential candidate, who has yet to endorse Trump, is clearly frustrated that the media are willing to report on Trump’s NATO remarks without explaining the ramifications of what a withdrawal would mean to the U.S. and other members of the alliance.

Rubio added that in his opinion, the reason that the media have failed to explain this issue in detail is that they don’t know either.

This sounds a lot like what deputy national security adviser for strategic communication Ben Rhodes told the New York Times Magazine about the media when he said that the average reporter in Washington “literally knows nothing.”

Frankly, I can’t disagree with that assessment.

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


Comments are turned off for this article.