Bias in the media is hardly a stunning revelation. Liberty Nation has led in exposing the enormous bias in print and electronic media for their slanting the news to support the liberal, progressive agenda. So it should have been no surprise when, back in January, the Daily Caller sent out a warning that the Army Times' new editor, Sarah Sicard, was an avowed hater of Donald Trump, the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
What is surprising is that a daily online "news" source like Army Times, supposedly published for military members and their families, would hire her for its top editorial position when she is known for viciously tweeting her hatred for the president.
According to the Daily Caller article, Sicard tweeted in May 2017: "I mean, I hate Trump." And again, in September 2018: "Okay I hate @realDonaldTrump." Now, this is the person leading the "largest independently owned newsroom focused solely on the US military." Someone with that much power to influence the thinking of our soldiers and their families with such enmity for those soldiers' commander in chief is scary.
Contrast Sicard's tweets, seething with animus for the president, with the Army Times' statement of how the publication should be viewed:
"Soldiers and their families rely on Army Times as a trusted, independent source for news and information on the most important issues affecting their careers and personal lives … Throughout its history, the company has a strong heritage and tradition of meeting the highest standards of independent journalism … "
The Army Times is free to hire whoever it wants and is under no obligation to follow or even consider its readership's judgments on staff suitability. Sicard has been in her position for more than six months.
What harm has been done? We will never know because one of the significant powers of an editor is to decide not to cover a story. When one compares the responsibilities of the members of the uniformed military to follow the lawful orders of the commander in chief and the officers appointed above them with the blatant disrespect demonstrated by a senior leader of a publication that believes it is a "trusted, independent source for news," there is clearly a serious disparity.
What we do know is in a recent Military Times article penned by Sicard, "Juneteenth marks a momentous occasion for the military, too," she skews an otherwise thoughtful tribute to the military's announcement of the end of the Civil War and of slavery with a gratuitous jab at President Trump.
In the conclusion of her article, Sicard conflates the activation of 40,000 National Guard soldiers recently "at the peak of the civil unrest" in the United States with President Trump's consideration of sending federal active-duty forces to assist in stopping the looting, the destruction of private and government property, and the endangering of peoples' lives.
Sicard isn't concerned with the carnage left in the wake of the mob violence that prompted the National Guard's activation. Rather she adds,
"In addition, President Donald Trump raised the idea of sending in federal troops. All this helped fuel discussions about military's roll [sic] in race issues -- seen as perhaps a stark contrast to Union troops riding in to liberate Galveston in 1865."
That was patently misleading and inaccurate. The looting and destruction of private and government property by marauding thugs and criminals were just that: It had nothing to do with "race issues." The left does not choose to see the reality of things as they are. On the contrary, liberals and the news "professionals" who are of that political stripe force-fit every event into the progressive narrative.
To ensure that all the appropriate talking points are included, Sicard throws in, "Other service members, on the other hand, have joined the cause helmed by the Black Lives Matter organization seeking to 'defund' or 'demilitarize' the police." Sicard quotes remarks by U.S. Navy Petty Officer Second Class David Smith in a news report: "I feel like there's a kind of divide between the military and civilian world, and we're trying to build a bridge to show them there's support here."
Well, that's where Sicard and Smith are wrong. There is supposed to be a "divide" between the military and civilian world. The Department of Defense doesn't ask civilians to go to Afghanistan or Iraq and jeopardize their lives. Nor does the Department of Defense condone active-duty military members taking sides in domestic political and social ruckuses. We need to keep the divide in place. If members of the military don't like that, they are free to serve out their enlistments and replace their uniforms with civilian attire. Choices and freedom are what America is all about.
So, Sarah, if you hate the commander in chief, you're in a tough spot to be, well, "a trusted, independent source for news," speaking truth to the warfighter.
The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliation.
~
Read more from Dave Patterson.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
