Take the case of Michael Flynn versus the case of Susan Rice.
Flynn was the national security designate when in December of 2016, about a month before the new administration took power, he had a conversation with the Russian ambassador to the US.

Given the crisis in the relationships between the US and Russia, that call was not only reasonable but, indeed, necessary and part of his job.

To all accounts, the call was entirely proper.
Yet here is what happened as a result of this call:

  • Late in December, rumors started that Flynn had a call with the Russian ambassador. Rather than shrug shoulders and say, “So what,” the media buzz-saw suggested something nefarious is involved.
  • A week or so later, VP Pence was going on the Sunday talk shows and, in preparation, asked Flynn about the call. Flynn told Pence no such call took place. Why he misinformed the VP is unknown. Maybe it was his ingrained nature as an intelligence officer to keep things on a need-to-know basis. Maybe he felt that for the benefit of US/Russia relationships it was better to keep that call confidential and did not want to put Pence in a position to have to say an untruth in public. One way or another, he did not tell Pence the truth.
  • By the end of January, someone in the Intelligence Community (IC) committed a crime—a felony—and leaked the existence of this call (captured by surveillance) to the press along with the full transcript of the call.
  • While that proved, again, that the call was innocuous and indeed necessary, that did not stop the media from making a HUGE scandal of the fact that VP Pence did not tell the truth on the Sunday talk shows, which left President Trump with two options: support Flynn and embarrass the VP or fire Flynn. He chose the latter and properly so. Flynn paid for his mistake or “fell on his sword.” One way or another, the media notched a win. End of story.

Roll back 5 years to September 2012. On 9/11/2012, terrorists attacked two US compounds in Benghazi, Libya, killing 4 Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya.

Here is what happened then:

  • On Sunday 9/16/2012, the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, went on 5 Sunday talk shows and categorically blamed the attack on a spontaneous uproar over a YouTube video. No ifs, buts or any reservations about it.
  • Within days after those appearances, the administration had to admit that the above story was simply not credible. It was preposterous to start with and simply not true. The event was a well prepared terrorist attack planned to occur on 9/11. In other words, Ambassador Rice lied to the American people.
  • Why did she lie? Clearly, in order to help President Obama in his bid to win reelection 6 weeks later. This was as politically-based and pre-determined a lie as is anything in this world.
  • What happened to her for lying? She was promoted to become the National Security Advisor to the reelected President Obama.
  • Media reaction? Crickets, NOTHING, Zip.

Susan Rice went on to lie on other occasions, such as famously suggesting that Sergeant Bergdahl, who was a deserter on the face of it (and, indeed, is about to face a court martial for desertion next month), served “with honor and distinction.” Oh, really?

She is again now caught in a lie which has the potential of being a huge—bigger than Watergate—scandal and where is the media?

Nowhere to be seen.

Could there be any more scandalous example of media bias, hypocrisy and desertion of their duty to keep politicians’ feet to the fire if they happen to be democratic?

It is time for the media to stand to a court martial too (figuratively speaking).