You’re probably already familiar with this story. ‘Journalists’ and their fellow Democrats are trying desperately to derail the confirmation of President-Elect Trump’s Secretary of Defense nominee, Pete Hegseth. To that end, ProPublica was set to publish a story based on lies. Apparently, an official at West Point lied to the ‘news’ outlet that Hegseth had never applied and been accepted for enrollment at the institution. This was only admitted to after Hegseth produced 25-year old documented proof that had indeed applied and been accepted by West Point. Oopsie! So, the story was killed. Of course, ‘journalists’ were patting themselves on the back because the obvious politically-motivated hit piece based entirely on lies didn’t get published. ‘Hooray for us!’
But, this created a REAL story: why did the official at West Point lie? Because, if that lie had been published, Hegseth would have been labeled a liar if he hadn’t held on to that decades-old document. Whew, that’s a lot of background.
That brings us to today. Republican Scott Jennings is having to chide a ‘journalist’ because they don’t believe their job is to go after government officials who lie to the them. No, really. Why? Because there’s just too many lies, darn it!
Read on.
Yes. This is exactly the point. When the government lies to you please tell someone. https://t.co/cY7zwgryDJ
— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) December 12, 2024
Understand we’re not dealing with actual journalists, we’re dealing with ‘journalists.’ That generally denotes a Democrat/activist who pretends to be a journalist.
With that in mind, it’s understandable that ‘journalists’ don’t want to expose their lying government sources. Why? They supply ‘journos’ with lies and juicy tidbits they use to craft their narratives. Narratives like, Hegseth is a liar for saying he was accepted at West Point.
Recommended
This poster gets it.
I suspect the reason why journalists don't want to burn sources that lie to them is that the journalists want to be lied to in the future by the same source so long as the lies support the narrative the journalist is pushing.
— mthullen (@mthullen1) December 12, 2024
Once some journalists burn lying sources, then there…
There’s no actual repercussions when a source lies. If so, how would we know? We don’t know who they are or if they even exist. ‘Journalists’ usually fall back on, ‘We’ll, that’s what my sources told me.’ Then they move on gleefully to their next target.
Washington D.C. is an ecosystem of lies. This next poster is right about that, but wrong that lies are no longer newsworthy.
Josh's position is that we've gotten to the endpoint where the government lies so often that it is no longer newsworthy. That's the implication.
— Opinionated Native Texan (@realcbbaylor) December 12, 2024
That guy is right, it would take up a lot of time… And that is the problem in itself. Perhaps with more light shed on each and every situation, lies will become less frequent. That is the hope anyway I suppose.
— InvisibleLady (@bkbart80) December 12, 2024
It is a waste of time to go after small lies. But, when a lie impacts the reputation and livelihood of a person, in this case Hegseth, you have to pursue it. Especially, if you participated in spreading that lie. That’s if you’re an actual journalist.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member