Boy, is USA Today still sounding defensive on this third day after publishing a lying screed about Democrats and Medicare for All from the White House. On Wednesday, they published the op-ed, then had to release a statement about why the published it, then on Thursday followed up with yet another defense of publishing his lies, never once admitting that they failed in their number one job: informing the public.
And they're still at it!!! Manny García, the "standards editor" for the paper is out now with yet another defense of the paper and the publishing of the op-ed that is just downright embarrassing for everyone involved. First he assures us that "it is not unusual for U.S. presidents to submit opinions" and that "Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush submitted op-eds and opposing views during their years in office as well as in their campaigns." As if the fact that they published a presidential op-ed was the problem. No. The problem was that every assertion fact in what they published was a lie.
Which makes the next defense ridiculous. "Trump's original op-ed was fact-checked and edited by USA TODAY and then sent back for review and revision." It's hard to imagine what the rough draft looked like when the published version was such bullshit. But the point is, some very basic assertions made by Trump were false. As the extremely lengthy fact-check USA Today finally decided to do—after the fact!—demonstrates.
García then tries to cloak the whole thing as some experiment in democracy in which the paper plays the role of the noble defender of the First Amendment. Literally. "This is democracy in action, and the beauty of our country and of the First Amendment." That they can publish the executive's lies, unanswered in real time?
But don't worry, García tells us, because they also published an editorial board editorial saying "Judge Brett Kavanaugh—Trump's guy—lacked the judicial temperament to sit on the Supreme Court," and that "There was no backlash" from the White House. Bully for them, they went where every other editorial board in the country went on Kavanaugh. What has one really got to do with the other? In García's formulation, it's a sign of the "respect and credibility of the board," that is "seen as an independent voice." Fine. Whatever.
The paper failed in its responsibility to its readers. Period. It published a hyperbolic partisan screed that presented absolutely no factual information without a word to the reader about the falsehoods they knew were included in it. That's the one thing that they are refusing to acknowledge in all of this, and the one thing they need to do.
GET OUT THE VOTE for Democrats. Just click here, enter your zip code, choose the event that works best for you, and RSVP to attend.
Can you do more? Please give $1 to our Senate and House candidates and make Republicans pay the price for sabotaging our health care.