Bill Marvel: Behind Rushmore

Contrary to most news accounts, the heavily footnoted report by Hunter & Williams blamed failures by police and politicians for the mayhem attending the protest against the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue. Local police had no training in handling large protests, sought no advice from more experienced agencies, and failed to coordinate effectively with state police — besides standing down at a crucial moment. City councilors blundered badly with an eleventh-hour order to relocate the protest, upsetting police plans for separating protesters and counter-protesters. 

The report also identified counter-protesters as the aggressors in the culminating violence, describing them attacking militia-clad participants as they complied with a police request to leave. Police eventually escorted the militiamen to their vehicles, but the assault continued, and they drove away under a hail of projectiles as counter-protesters kicked at their cars. Minutes later, an enraged lone-wolf protester plowed his Dodge Charger into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one of them. 

The crime of one man who was subsequently diagnosed as bipolar and schizophrenic ultimately defined the entire demonstration. Yet investigators documented the aggression of the counter-protesters and implicitly acknowledged the restraint among protesters — noting that no one was shot despite all the firearms they carried. Media that cultivated the opposite image of the protest ignored the publication of this contradictory report. 

Similarly deceptive coverage followed Donald Trump's speech at Mount Rushmore, which I would never have bothered watching but for the universal condemnation. CNN's Chris Cillizza listed Trump's "most outrageous lines," but Cillizza's commentary seemed more outrageous than anything he quoted. The Washington Post called it a "dark speech." The New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer — both of which recently betrayed systemic radicalism through forced editorial-room resignations — described Trump exploiting "cultural divisions." All that hyperbole drove me to waste 40 minutes listening to his speech. 

Trump is a lousy speaker on a good day. The egotistical, FDR-style tilt of his chin mars any appeal in whatever he says, but the words at Rushmore were not his; dissonance marked every ad-lib. Accidental emphasis implied an undue reverence for Manifest Destiny that I found jarring, knowing what it entailed, but homage to Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King tempered allusions to Andrew Jackson and Buffalo Bill. I would have welcomed a nod to Crazy Horse, whose monument stands 12 miles from Rushmore, but Trump did not defend Confederate monuments, as CNN falsely reported; he seemed to studiously avoid mentioning them. 

The speech could certainly have been improved, especially if delivered by a more sincere speaker. Still, it was basically just old-fashioned Fourth of July patriotism — extolling the country's founding principles and the more successful efforts to realize them, rather than dwelling on the failures. 

Censorious news outlets went gunning for Trump, as usual, but could only attack the words, so they assaulted the sentiments the words represent. "Let us go forward united in our purpose" somehow offended CNN, the Times, and the Post. Clearly, they deemed "I love this country" a deplorable emotion — especially the Times, which actively encouraged Americans to despise their country through the preposterous sophistry of its "1619 Project." 

Prejudicial reporting by news giants sets the example for legions of likeminded amateur propagandists who proselytize their friends and write letters to the editor. Simply misrepresent what was said or done, and trust that no one will bother to check the accuracy of your assertions. 

The relentless "resistance" among Democrats and their media allies has wrought enormous damage on our institutions without doing Trump any more harm than he would have done himself. Years of incessant editorial excoriation, with theatrical investigations and impeachment proceedings, have not worsened the repugnance I already felt for him. The sheer ferocity of the crusade has, however, sparked moments of actual sympathy for him, while my suspicions of a partisan FBI and activist judges have intensified. So has my disgust with politicians pandering to the resistance for personal advantage, and my contempt for political evangelists posing as paragons of journalistic integrity. 

Bureaucratic bloodhounds of Russian collusion exuded delusion and dishonesty reminiscent of the birthers we scorned for harassing President Obama. Democrats who justly scoffed at ridiculous excuses for impeaching Obama seized their own contrived pretext for impeaching Trump. Those who now dismiss Tara Reade's accusations opined only yesterday that all women must be believed. Even media alarm over the contagion threatened by mass gatherings depends on the affiliation of those who are gathering, and reporting. 

Donald Trump never had much to lose in a mud-slinging contest, and the one begun in response to his election diminished his reputation less than it has those of his antagonists. The most regrettable of the casualties may be the news industry. By allowing political prejudices and personal hatreds to adulterate reporting and dilute standards, journalists robbed their own institution of the credibility on which it — and all of us — depended.

William Marvel lives in South Conway.