The Same, Continued

 Look, I know I should drop the subject, but Jeff Gerth's series about how unfairly the media hounded Trump over Russia has really annoyed me. I think there is a good case that the media got too carried away and were unduly gullible after the Steele Dossier came out.  (I certainly was).  But Gerth applies that criticism even to coverage before the election, making clear that the subject of any Trump ties to Russia was wholly inappropriate.  

See the graph above?  See the small bar at the very right end showing media coverage over Trump and Russia?  Gerth -- and as I understand it, the right wing in general -- sees that as outrageous persecution.

Hillary Clinton's ties to Russia, on the other hand, are entirely fair game.

So let's take out the names and just call them Candidate A and Candidate B and see if it makes any sense.

We will start at the simplest possible.  Both candidates have, at different times in their careers, favored improved relations with Russia.  Both have questionable ties to Russia.  Does it make sense that one candidate's ties are fair game and the other's are not?

Now let's get just a little more specific.  Candidate A is a former Secretary of State who attempted to improve relations with Russia, but was not successful and is now running as a hawk.  Candidate B is running on a platform of improving relations.  It would seem to me that Candidate B's ties to Russia are more important than Candidate A's, since he is currently seeking to improve relations.  Of course, if you believe that Candidate A is corrupt, she might change her mind later, so her Russia ties remain relevant.

And let's get more specific again.  Candidate A operates a charitable foundation that accepts donations from sometimes dubious sources.  At the time she was trying to improve relations with Russia, she accepted some Russian donations to her foundation, and her spouse accepted a $500,000 speaking engagement in Russia.

Candidate B is a real estate developer with far-ranging international ties, including to Russia, who has made frequent, though rarely successful, overtures to invest in Russia. He also hired a campaign manager whose last job was as a consultant to the pro-Russia party in Ukraine.

Does it seem reasonable to say that Candidate A's ties to Russia are an appropriate subject for investigation, while Candidate B's ties to Russia should be completely off the table?

Now suppose that Candidate A's failed attempt to improve relations with Russia took place within the framework of maintaining our traditional alliances.  Candidate B, by contrast, wants to ditch our traditional alliances, seems opposed to the whole idea of having allies, and does not seem interested in friendly relations with any country except Israel -- and Russia.

But still, apparently, according to the right wing in general and Gerth in particular, Candidate A's Russia ties are an appropriate subject for investigation, while Candidate B's Russia ties must not even be mentioned.

What justification can you possibly come up with for that?  Well, Gerth seems to offer that the information about Candidate A's Russia ties come from a book written by a partisan Republican opposition researcher, whereas the information on Candidate B's ties come from a freelance, hired gun opposition researcher and are therefore illegitimate.  How strange!

The other reason right wingers (including Gerth) offer is that Russian intelligence said that Candidate A was trying to stir up a scandal about Candidate B's ties to Russia, which clearly proves that he was completely innocent and had no sinister ties to Russia whatever.

Well, first of all, the media in 2016 didn't know about this memo and therefore could hardly be expected to take it into account.  And second, candidates routinely stir up scandals against their political rivals. The mere act of stirring up a scandal is no proof, one way or the other, whether the scandal has any legitimate underpinnings.  Only further investigation can determine that.

Apparently Gerth and other right wingers believe that the bar graph above shows an unconscionable persecution of Donald Trump, and that a more legitimate balance of reporting would look like this:

They appear to see that as a spectacular difference.

On the other hand, there may be an element of projection here.  Right wingers have ample experience in stirring up scandals that are wholly without substance.  Network Propaganda details three such attempts.  More on that later.