Issues & Insights

Just How Far Will The Press Go To Defend The Impeachment Narrative?

I&I Editorial

The Washington Post ran a story on Friday with the declarative headline: “Four debunked talking points used to discredit the whistleblower complaint.” The story then goes on to confirm all four.

And reporters wonder why just 13% trust them “a lot” these days?

“To defend President Trump against the whistleblower allegations, Republicans in Congress are having to dodge or misstate some key facts,” writes Amber Phillips.

She then lists the the four talking points:

  1. There is no quid pro quo — in the call or the whistleblower complaint
  2. The whistleblower has political motivations, and so the complaint can’t be trusted
  3. The whistleblower had only secondhand knowledge
  4. This is a ‘secondhand conspiracy theory built on biased media reports’

So, let’s see how well she debunks these.

On “debunked” talking point No. 1: Phillips begins her debunking by writing: “This is technically true.” Then she goes on to write that “the idea of a quid pro quo may be a red herring.” In other words, she admits there’s no quid pro quo demonstrated in either document, which is what got the recent impeachment frenzy started. Then just dismisses it as irrelevant.

How about “debunked” talking point No. 2? Phillips writes that “Page 5 of a report about the whistleblower by Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, mentions that the whistleblower has ‘arguable political bias … in favor of a rival candidate.’” So Phillips just confirmed the first part of this “debunked” claim. Which at the very least means that the trustworthiness of the whistleblower should be scrutinized very carefully. The fact that she dismisses this concern is what’s shocking, not that Republicans are raising it as an issue.

Ok, well maybe Phillips does a better job debunking talking point No. 3. Nope. She starts that debunking by writing, “This is also true.” Someone ought to present Phillips with a dictionary, wherein she would learn that the definition of debunking is to “expose the falseness or hollowness” of something.

There’s still one more talking point to debunk. How about No. 4, that it was a “secondhand conspiracy built on biased media reports”? Surely she is able to debunk that one.

Nope. Instead, Phillips writes that “The whistleblower does use public events, as reported by journalists, to bolster his or her claims and help paint a picture of a president abusing his power for personal gain.”

Wait, isn’t that exactly what No. 4 says (except for the part about “biased” which should go without saying)?

So, the entire exercise by the Washington Post is not about “debunking” anything. It’s about trying to defend the original impeachment narrative, even as the facts themselves fail to do so.

This is your “unbiased” press at work. Expect to see a lot of this now that Democrats and their media handmaidens can almost taste an impeachment victory.

— Written by John Merline

Note to Readers: Issues & Insights is a new site launched by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to use our decades of experience to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we think our approach to commentary is sorely lacking both in today’s mainstream media and on the internet. If you like what you see, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right sidebar. And be sure to tell your friends!

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.


I & I Editorial Board

The Issues and Insights Editorial Board has decades of experience in journalism, commentary and public policy.


  • The press will go far enough to expose themselves for the liars they are and far enough to get mud on their face again, just like they have done every other time they have foolishly believed their false narratives would get our duly elected president out of office. The truth ALWAYS comes out and lies are always exposed.

  • Sorry, folks, the evidence is too strong to escape. Put together with the other charges, it means Trump is gone. It looks like he may take Barr and some others with him. Pompous-eo is in danger as is Mulvaney and Giuliani.

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on donate button above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!
%d bloggers like this: