<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&amp;c2=15743189&amp;cv=2.0&amp;cj=1&amp;&amp;c5=&amp;c15=">

Liberal media: If you ever report on anything besides Trump's misdeeds, you're suspect

122917 Beltway-Yglesias pic
The deeper truths he holds are that President Trump is an immoral menace &mdash; and so am I. (AP)

Liberal blogger Matt Yglesias today accused me and my colleagues of "immoral," "covering for" President Trump. His evidence: our editorial today, which calls Trump a "fabulist" criticizes the barrage of media errors 2017 saw.

So Yglesias' definition of immoral covering for Trump appears to be ever covering anything besides Trump's misdeeds. He certainly can't mean that we ignore Trump's lies or misdeeds. Here is a sampling I gathered in about 5 minutes, of material from my columns from the past hundred days or so:

I could go on, but the list would be too long.
The bigger story here is the mindset on the Left that it's bad to ever point out when Trump's critics are wrong, or to ever write anything not attacking Trump is covering for Trump. The premise behind this mindset seems to be that the media should ignore specific pertinent truths and just report the "deeper truth."

If Yglesias is operating with that mindset, that explains how he could accuse me of covering for Trump — whom he said he preferred to Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio — given that I've written many, many critical things about Trump since his election. That is, Yglesias may see specific truths (such as what I write) as irrelevant if they cut against what he is convinced is the deeper truth (such as what sort of man I really am).

The deeper truths he holds are that Trump is an immoral menace — and so am I.