At this point, most Americans know about the Special Operations raid, spear-pointed by Delta operators, to take out the murderous leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
The operation was dangerous and complex, particularly considering the number of groups operating in that part of Syria, and yet Baghdadi was forced to blow himself up (while using three of his children as human shields). No U.S. personnel were hurt and the mission was a complete success. Further targeted operations have taken out leaders directly subordinate to Baghdadi.
As Baghdadi had led ISIS from the foundation of the terror group, through the establishment of the ISIS Caliphate, through two administrations, his death is comparable to the death of Osama bin Laden. The news coverage of this operation under President Donald Trump, compared with the coverage of the operation to kill bin Laden under President Barack Obama, offers a prime example of the kind of media bias that so infuriates conservatives.
After Trump spoke to the nation Sunday morning about Baghdadi's death, after the death was confirmed by DNA analysis, the mainstream media headlines made clear attempts to marginalize the operation. CNN headlines read: "Trump says ISIS leader is dead." The NPR headline asserted that Baghdadi "apparently committed suicide."
In comparison, the headline by NPR after Obama's operation to kill bin Laden read: "Osama Bin Laden is Dead; Obama tells nation 'Justice is done.'" This headline was repeated by multiple mainstream sources. You will note that CNN's "ISIS leader" (vs. Baghdadi) can be interpreted to mean any level of ISIS leader, from the leader of a few men to the top.
"Trump says" questions the truthfulness of Trump's claim, and was unnecessary after DNA analysis verified Baghdadi's death. This would be similar to the headline in 2011 reading: "Obama says Al Qaeda leader is dead."
You have free articles remaining.
The headline for the Washington Post showed the most biased coverage: "Austere Religious Scholar Dead at 48." Let's be clear that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was a horrible human being, particularly in ways the left claims to hold most important. He was a murderer who personally raped many women, started a massive sex-slave operation throughout his alleged caliphate, personally cut the throats of multiple prisoners while ordering the genocide of entire people groups, the list goes on and on.
Baghdadi was responsible for the attempted genocide of the Yazidis and other groups including Christians. About the only truth in the Washington Post headline was "dead at 48." Baghdadi was basically an uneducated street criminal prior to being radicalized in prison.
Most Muslims would deny Baghdadi was a "religious scholar," even though Baghdadi attempted to portray that lie. He had many wives, and yet raped countless women, hardly living an "austere" life. Again this was the media attempting to further a murderer/rapist's false narrative.
Beyond the motivation of marginalizing the operation, the Washington Post and most of the progressive establishment were horrified by Trump's description of Baghdadi and his manner of death. Trump correctly stated that Baghdadi died like a "coward" and a "dog." In point of fact, Baghdadi was being chased by a special operations dog and grabbed three of his children to protect himself. He then blew up himself and three children to prevent facing the dog and potential capture.
Having served in that part of the world, I know the language Trump used was perfect in sending the right message to enemies and allies. Baghdadi was a despicable human being and was in no way an "austere religious scholar." He was rightly humiliated by Trump, and the humiliation helps discredit the ISIS movement for allowing Baghdadi to lead all those years.
The left's criticisms of Trump's description of Baghdadi does nothing to further causes important to progressives and conservatives alike: Ending sex trafficking, ending slavery, ending persecution of minorities, etc. It shows they put hatred of Trump over human rights.
For years, conservatives have spoken about mainstream media bias, and in this case the media cannot ignore the evidence. Anyone can see it. It's time for news agencies to end the power of progressives driving their slant to the news and to welcome conservatives as a way to provide true diversity and balance to news. Most do not expect that to happen.
Wouldn't it be nice to fully trust the objectivity of the mainstream media? At least to trust that the mainstream media wouldn't attempt to slant the news in favor of a man like Baghdadi over the president.