The media gladly ran with unsubstantiated allegations to start. Then, after he withdrew his nomination, the Washington Post ran a story to say that the most serious allegations weren't true. Why didn't the media do the research before the stories were run to destroy Admiral Jackson's life? After he pulled out of the nomination, the corrections to the stories will be minimal. The goal has been accomplished.

The following article is a perfect example of what is wrong with almost all reporting today: the nomination of a distinguished admiral, Ronnie Jackson, to lead the Veterans Administration, and his subsequent withdrawal after a barrage of negative press.

Journalists pick a target or an agenda that happens almost always to match the Democrat agenda and talking points. They "report" about this relentlessly, and then maybe later they might do a little research.

Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana), other Democrats, and the media should be embarrassed that they destroyed Jackson's life. But they don't care. Take a look at this, which ran in the Washington Post:

The White House on Friday said officials had conducted a thorough review of presidential physician Ronny L. Jackson's vehicle records and found three minor incidents but no evidence that he "wrecked" a car after drinking at a Secret Service going-away party, as was alleged in a document released by Senate Democrats this week. The crash stood out as one of the most serious allegations in the two-page document, which also detailed accusations that Jackson drank on the job, improperly prescribed and dispensed medications, and created a "toxic" work environment. The Navy rear admiral withdrew his bid to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs on Thursday, less than 24 hours after the allegations came to light. Although many news outlets, including The Washington Post, have described anonymous accounts of some of the other charges, no evidence has publicly surfaced that the crash happened since Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) authorized the release of the allegations on Wednesday. Jackson has vehemently denied all of the allegations. Also Friday, the Secret Service issued a statement denying the details of a published report that agents had intervened on an overseas trip to prevent Jackson from bothering then-President Barack Obama. According a report from CNN, Jackson had pounded on another White House official's hotel room door close enough to the president's room to risk disturbing him. "A thorough review of internal documents related to all Presidential foreign travel that occurred in 2015, in addition to interviews of personnel who were present during foreign travel that occurred during the same time frame, has resulted in no information that would indicate the allegation is accurate," the statement reads.

For the last eighteen months, the target has been President Trump, from Democrats along with an almost universally complicit media. Not one piece of evidence has ever been shown to establish actual collusion with Russia, but that doesn't matter.

Obama illegally spied on thousands of blameless Americans, including Trump associates, and instead of the media targeting Obama and his people for their obvious violations of the law, they target Trump.

Fired former FBI director James Comey says the Russians may have something on Trump with zero evidence, and the media report the story as if it were true. The FBI even used a false dossier funded by Democrats as an excuse to spy on Trump's associates, and the media have acted as though it were Trump's obligation to prove the dossier false instead of the government's job to prove that the dossier was true.

The targeting of Republicans by the press, with no actual evidence, has been going on a long time.

In 2012, it was the false story by Harry Reid about Romney not paying his taxes.

In 2008, it was the false story run by the New York Times about McCain having an affair.

In the 1980s Democrats targeted labor secretary Raymond Donovan, who was acquitted of any wrongdoing.

After his acquittal in a 1987 fraud trial, Donovan was quoted as saying, "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"

The legal costs and destruction of reputations are endless. There is an agenda to push, and facts haven't mattered for a long time.

I wonder where the American Civil Liberties Union is on all this. Why don't they care about the illegal spying? Why don't they care about the no-knock raid on Michael Cohen? Why don't they worry about the Michael Flynn indictment? Why didn't they care about the targeting of Tea Party groups?

It seems that the ACLU cares about only some people's civil liberties.

Image by Todd Bernard via Flickr, Creative Commons SA 2.0.