The Marches For Democrats, As Reported By Liberal Media

Today “marches for science” were held in hundreds of cities. The one here in the Twin Cities reportedly drew 10,000 liberals. In reality, of course, these were marches against President Trump or, stated differently, in favor of the Democratic Party. There isn’t anything surprising about that. When political factions are out of power because most people don’t agree with them, they like to march.

To a remarkable degree, liberal media pretended, at least, to take seriously the “marches for science.” (As though the marchers’ political opponents were against science, whatever that might mean.) I spent most of the morning in the gym, and for an hour or so CNN featured visuals of the marches with a legend across the screen that said, “Climate deniers persist despite evidence.”

Probably no one at CNN knows anything about the global warming debate. Possibly people at CNN are so clueless that they seriously believe that “climate deniers,” or “climate change deniers,” exist. They obviously have no idea what the evidence about the Earth’s climate actually shows, i.e., that the alarmists’ models are wrong.

We have been writing on those topics for years. For the moment I just want to note, wistfully, that we can’t even imagine what it would be like if the mass media were conservative. Can you imagine CNN, or anyone else (Fox is no exception), covering Tea Party demonstrations with a line across the bottom of the screen saying, “Obama’s defenders persist despite evidence”? Or any media outlet covering a pro-gun demonstration with the tag line, “Gun control advocates persist despite evidence”? Or how about a Tax Day demonstration in favor of tax cuts, with a legend across CNN’s screen that says, “High tax advocates persist despite evidence.”

Every one of those examples would be far more justified, if one actually has a nodding acquaintance with the facts, than CNN’s stupid reference to “climate deniers.” But we can’t even imagine a world in which commentary from a conservative perspective could routinely be inserted into supposedly objective news coverage.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.