I already wrote about the spectrum of bias in press coverage of the Mueller report. But of course, that’s hardly the only story for which you have to “consider the source” before believing it.
For instance, a story about the Administration’s environmental policies appeared in Salon.com (which I would never mistake for a legitimate, unbiased news source) with a provocative headline claiming that a Trump official declared that “Science is a Democrat thing.” It’s such a load of garbage (complete with quotes from a group that poses as a nonpartisan pro-science organization but isn’t) that I’m not going to increase their click count by linking to it. But here’s a sample:
“Rep. Alan Lowenthal, D-Calif., citing the inspector general's report into the matter, said that a Trump appointee named Landon ‘Tucker’ Davis had offered a likelier explanation for why a study that was more than halfway done was abruptly shut down: In Davis' words, ‘Science was a Democrat thing.’"
Salon didn’t bother to explain what position of influence Davis might hold, or why they would not only use such a questionable quote from a partisan, third-hand source, but treat it as headline news. There was a link in that paragraph that readers who didn’t follow it might assume points to more information verifying the quote. Instead, it was a link to a typically dry letter from a deputy inspector general, saying that Trump officials explained that the study was canceled because after spending more than half of the million-dollar-plus budget, they felt it hadn’t produced results that were likely to justify further costs. The “Science is a Democrat thing” quote didn’t appear in it at all.
So I guess “journalism” isn’t a Salon thing.
I also think that after hearing that people can change genders just by deciding to, that there’s no biological difference between men and women, and that fetuses only become babies 15 to 20 minutes after they’re born, we can agree that science isn’t a Democrat thing, either.
Instead of linking to Salon, I think I’ll link you to this article by a science writer who is hardly a Trump supporter, but who is honest enough to realize what damage is done by partisan “journalists” who claim that Trump is “at war with science,” when that’s not true and it misleads the public. There are some areas in which Trump has increased funding, and others in which cutbacks are just part of a general reduction in non-defense spending and staffing. Meanwhile, Obama defunded science projects and suppressed access to scientific information, and the press painted him as a champion of science.
But then, truth just isn’t a modern journalism thing.