For a group of professionals lightning quick to tell us how important they are to freedom, one would think the establishment media would want to illustrate its value in real-time when covering global events, especially those involving impending war.

If it was to be, it was not to be in the past week as journalists set truth aside in favor of their blind disdain for an American president. If the price to pay for slamming Donald Trump was to seemingly embrace the Iranian, terrorist-mastermind Qasem Soleimani, so be it.

CNN’s John Berman actually called the killing of the Iranian general “murder” before adding the term “assassination.”

The Sunday New York Times gushed about the fallen general.

“Young and old. Rich and poor. Hard-liner and reformer, General Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful military leader, was almost universally admired and had near cult figure status. After being killed in Baghdad on Friday in a drone strike ordered by President Trump, his image is now plastered across Tehran, shrouded in black drapes.”

The Times’ coverage seemed more fitting for a rotunda report from alongside the Abe Lincoln catafalque in 1865. It said, “Iran is bestowing honors on Mr. Suleimani as if he were a combination of statesman and saint. His body will circulate around shrines in all the holy cities of Shiite Islam from Samarra, Kadhimiya, Karbala and Najaf in Iraq to Mashhad and Qom in Iran.”

ABC reporter Martha Raddatz was also effusive as she spoke of the scene playing out in Iran.

“The crowds are massive and emotional. There are many tears here. … Inside the funeral service, the emotion just as powerful. The supreme leader of Iran weeping and praying over a coffin draped in the Iraqi flag. This is the largest funeral in Iran since the death of the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989,” she exclaimed.

The coverage was far and wide. As the Media Research Center noted, the Associated Press tweeted out a picture of the leader of Iran, overcome with emotion. “Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wept openly at the funeral for Gen. Qassem Soleimani,” read the dispatch. “His tears give insight into how the death of the commander killed in a U.S. strike is being felt personally by the supreme leader.”

On the New York Times podcast, “The Daily,” host Michael Barbaro remarked that the scene being described by their reporter, “feels like the kind of unified national outpouring that is reserved for a small handful of figures in any country, I mean, a beloved president, a civil rights leader like Martin Luther King in the United States.”

When the President tweeted out a message that read, in part, “All is well,” CNN hero-reporter Jim Acosta ran in front of the camera to set the record straight. “‘All is well’ is the message from the President. I doubt that there are very many people in the nation’s capital who agree with that assessment. All is not well tonight.”

Later in the week, when the president addressed the nation on the subject, MSNBC anchor Katy Tur took offense to the optics. “Flanked by stern white military men, the president addressed the world this morning, following Iran’s attack on military bases housing American soldiers last night.”

Stern white military men?

She gets paid a lot of money for that analysis.

They all do.

Americans deserve a better media than this. At some point there will be a reckoning and those who have distorted the journalism business to a model that features cheap advocacy, dripping with toxic clickbait will have to answer for the societal and cultural divisions they have caused. Perhaps they can live happily as full-time protestors but they must relinquish the mantle of ‘journalist.’

Let us hope that day is soon.