Rekha Basu

rbasu@dmreg.com

If you ask Donald Trump supporters around here what they like about their candidate, one theme comes up regardless of race, age, sex or occupation: He tells it like it is, without fear of offending the politically correct. For that reason, supporters claim, the liberal media either don’t cover or deliberately distort his words.

The idea of a truth-telling Trump taking on a biased media establishment was a centerpiece of my interviews with folks attending the Trump-Pence rally in Des Moines Aug. 5. Jeff Hall blamed the media for not covering the infiltration of Sharia law into 17 U.S. jurisdictions where he says police can’t even go. (The fact-checking site Snopes.com has called the claim false.) Hall also accused Gold Star father Khizr Khan, who criticized Trump’s stance on banning Muslims, of promoting the Islamic legal code as a lawyer. “That’s exactly what we’re trying to expel from here,” Hall said.

Teacher Mary Clark expressed concern that Americans are not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance or even say prayers out loud. “It’s anything goes,” she said. “We have traditions in America that are being mocked.” Her sister-in-law Carrie Clark faulted media bias, observing: “I think you get differential coverage depending on what party you’re in. I’m a teacher, and you’ve got to be impartial with students.”

And accountant Chris Diana declared skeptically, “I’m here to see what he says and what comes out in the press."

Trump's vice presidential nominee stoked those flames in his remarks. “The opposition media keep thinking they’ve done him in,” said Mike Pence to loud applause. “Next morning, Donald Trump is still standing!”

Not surprisingly, Trump's opponents often complain of the opposite: that he got too much press compared with other GOP primary candidates, and without which, he wouldn’t have gotten so far.

I get the need for fact-based, balanced reporting. Even we columnists and editorial writers, who are paid for our opinions, have to base them on facts. What I don’t get is why Trump this week so badly undermined the principle of truth by appointing the executive chairman of Breitbart News, Stephen Bannon, as CEO of his campaign.

If you’re not familiar with the pro-Trump, conspiracy theory news site, look it up: Breitbart.com. In a recent story, for example, writer Paul Sperry contends, based on two articles Khan wrote, that the Muslim father whose son died fighting for the U.S. military in Iraq thinks only Sharia law can bring human rights. But The Huffington Post’s press columnist Jason Linkins read Khan's articles and concluded differently: "At no point does Khan argue that the United States Constitution should be 'subordinated' to Sharia." Rather, Linkens said the pieces provide facts about Islamic law and its origins and examine various interpretations.

The stories on Breitbart are intended to promote a viewpoint that bolsters a political stance: In that case, and in a recent one claiming, without evidence, that Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin has ties to radical Islam, it's to spread fear of radical Islam infiltrating the U.S. Wouldn't that tend to justify Trump's controversial call for banning Muslims? The site even suggested Abedin married former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who is Jewish, to cover up her intentions.

In 2010, a black U.S. Agriculture Department director in Georgia became a victim of Breitbart's deceptions and was forced to resign when the site edited a speech she had given to the NAACP to make it sound as if she was against white people. In fact, Shirley Sherrod had been building the opposite argument, to conclude it's not about black or white, "It's about poor versus those who have." But higher-ups at the agency, led by Iowa’s former Gov. Tom Vilsack, were so skittish about such accusations that they asked Sherrod to resign before verifying the story. Vilsack ended up apologizing and offering her her job back.

Breitbart’s lead story Aug. 18 consisted of a few sentences that began: “Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton laughed off questions from reporters about her health, while standing in the rope line after a campaign rally in Cleveland, Ohio.” It offered no information about Clinton having a health problem. The groundless idea that she does, reports National Public Radio, was promoted in a comment by Trump claiming his opponent “lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS and all of the many adversaries we face. …” The station tied that back to a 2012 fainting incident when Clinton had a stomach virus and suffered a concussion.

The point is, anyone can tailor news to fit an agenda by selectively taking a piece of information and twisting or blowing it out of proportion. Trump, who is credited for telling it like it is, has relied on that technique, starting with the claim that President Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S.

People who like Trump's approach to problem-solving and making America great should vote for him — but only after doing their homework and satisfying themselves that the threats he warns of are real, and his plans for combating them are constitutional. Otherwise, we could have an illegitimate election based on lies. We are still suffering from the fallout of a lie-based war.

In the Trump crowd that day were people I disagreed with, certainly, but some who could under different circumstances have been my friends. I appreciate anyone who exercises a civic responsibility to turn out to hear and compare candidates before voting. They aren't served by a Breitbart approach to winning the presidency through character assassinations and false fear-mongering based on someone's religion or ethnicity. Nor is America. Plain talk isn't worth much if it's untrue.