Trump accuses Big Media of ‘illegal’ reporting, virtually abolishes Voice of America

President Trump has spent the last decade railing against fake news, a phrase that’s now deeply embedded in our culture.

He has accused the media of being relentlessly biased against him – which is largely true – and called out journalists by name. He has sued such outlets as ABC News (which paid him $16 million), CBS and the Des Moines Register.

He has charged that Politico received payments for negatively covering him – it turned out these were routine subscriptions, and for the New York Times as well – and then canceled many of the subscriptions.  

TRUMP ORDERS THE DISMANTLING OF GOVERNMENT-FUNDED, 'PROPAGANDA'-PEDDLING MEDIA OUTLET

But in a controversial speech at the Justice Department, Trump went further than ever before. He said the Times, the Washington Post and the major networks were engaged in "illegal" reporting.

The president did not specify what was illegal about it. But perhaps there’s a short distance between Trump’s accusation and a future prosecution?  

The DOJ speech drew heavy coverage. The Times said he "veered from his prepared remarks to lash out at lawyers and former prosecutors by name in a venue dedicated to the impartial administration of justice. He also accused the department’s previous leadership of trying to destroy him and declared former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. the head of a ‘crime’ family."

The Post quoted Trump as saying his enemies had "launched one hoax and disinformation operation after another, broke the law on a colossal scale, persecuted my family, staff and supporters, raided my home, Mar-a-Lago, and did everything within their power to prevent me from becoming the President of the United States." The paper added: "It is rare for a president to visit the Justice Department — which has kept safeguards between the White House and the law enforcement agency in the post-Watergate era to ensure that politics don’t interfere with law enforcement investigations."

But here’s the fascinating part.

The Times and the Post made no mention of Trump’s "illegal" reporting charge. Didn’t give it as much as a paragraph. Couldn’t squeeze it in (I say in jest, since space is unlimited in the digital age).

I see two possible explanations for this.

One is that they are so offended by the president’s accusation, which they view as false, that they don’t want to give it any oxygen and share it with readers. In other words, when the president is shooting arrows at you, it’s best to deflect them.

The other is that they fear that there might be a prosecution down the road – given Trump’s history of civil lawsuits – and don’t want to cross him on this issue. In short, they are intimidated by the president.

But here’s the thing: If two of the nation’s preeminent newspapers aren’t going to defend themselves on the charge of illegality, who is? How can they expect any backing when they won’t stand up for themselves, by censoring Trump’s remarks?

Meanwhile, over the weekend, the president all but abolished the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe with an executive order aimed at its parent agency – whose special adviser is former Arizona candidate Kari Lake.

Trump ordered 1,300 journalists, executives and other staffers placed on indefinite leave. His argument is that they’re part of the radical left. He’s a longtime critic of VOA, having once called it the "voice of the Soviet Union."

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

Carla Babb, the VOA’s Pentagon correspondent, posted this: "A silencing of VOA will be celebrated by communists, autocrats and ayatollahs whose lies we shed light on." 

The VOA was launched during World War II and credited with successfully countering enemy propaganda for decades. But there’s a legitimate debate to been had about who the "enemy" is these days, given Trump’s friendly relationship with Vladimir Putin.

What’s more, people aren’t huddled around their radios as they were in 1942.

But those who were laid off indefinitely consider themselves independent journalists – and suddenly find themselves out of a job.