Today, we get to hear from Attorney General William Barr as he testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The pre-hearing spin from the media all centers around a letter from and a phone conversation with special counsel Robert Mueller who did not like the way the special counsel was perceived following Barr’s summary of the full report.
In the letter, Mueller told Barr his message to Congress “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s views on obstruction of justice.
It continued, “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”
The letter seems to be very clear in what Mueller wanted. He believed Barr needed to elaborate about the obstruction aspect of the investigation so people understood why he WAS NOT recommending indictments. It takes a very special type of eisegesis to come to any other conclusion.
The media knows this. They also know the Mueller report has already been released and supports the contention that criminal levels of obstruction could not be proven. This is extremely important to remember and for some reason no journalists on the left are taking this into account. The report’s out there. Why are we still focusing on the Barr summary?
To answer this, we simply need to understand how the news is actually reported versus how it should be reported. The way it’s reported today is a combination of emphasis, exclusion, and interpretation in which facts are prioritized based on a predetermined narrative, then formed into a storyline that communicates the narrative. In this case, the long-running narrative is that the President obstructed the investigation and therefore must be punished. Their proof: the Mueller letter.
Here’s how the news should be reported. I’ll put it in bullet form for easy reading in case this article lands on a mainstream media reporter’s smartphone screen:

• Mueller letter reveals he wanted clarity about why he was not recommending charges
• Now that the report is out, it’s a moot point but an interesting footnote
• Barr should be asked why he didn’t offer more clarity early on instead of waiting for the report to be released

This is just one example of a trend we’re seeing in the media. Perhaps it’s always been there and I simply never noticed. Perhaps they’re getting more blatant in their spin. Either way, it’s a problem. Most Americans don’t take the time to explore issues fully on their own. They turn to media types they trust to digest the facts and regurgitate them in a meaningful and short manner. How many actually read the Mueller report? Most people haven’t. Instead, they let the media tell them what it says and why it’s important.
Since the report didn’t yield fruit, the media is turning to the pre-report summary in an attempt to keep the collusion and obstruction narratives alive. They hide the fact that the summary was meaningless. They pervert the fact that Mueller’s complaints were about clarity and not an indication that he actually wanted obstruction charges. They won’t mention that Mueller also said, “Nothing in the attorney general’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading.”
That would be against their narrative.
By misinterpreting the news for the people, mainstream media has begun casting Barr as an evil pawn in Trump’s army. They now believe HE should be investigated and HE should be impeached. They really don’t know when to give up.
https://widget.civist.cloud/?api_url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.civist.cloud%2Ft%2Fc3a94636-74a7-482e-90b6-c4448a6919e5%2F#/RW1iZWRkaW5nOmZiZWFhMjAxLTQ4MGMtNDRhMS1iNjQyLTQzNmYwM2MxMmZhOQ==