We’ve documented how the Media Research Center was in full Trump Regime Media mode after President Trump’s missile strikes on Iran. That continued with a June 24 post by Joseph Vazquez crowing that reasonable predictions of an oil price spike after the missile strikes didn’t come to pass:
The rapidly fleeting shelf-life of the half-cocked doomist agitprop from lefty outlets like The New York Times desperate for an anti-Trump banger of a story is comedic gold in its own right.
Times economic policy reporter Tony Romm tried to be quick-on-the-draw by firing off an alarmist piece of propaganda June 23 that President Donald Trump’s strategic attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities could possibly cause oil prices to go to the moon.
Trump, in Romm’s view, had to “confront the potential economic blowback from his military strikes on Iran, which threatened to send oil and gas prices soaring at a moment when U.S. consumers are already facing significant financial strains.” That was just before oil prices would plummet well over four percent just a day later on June 24.
In fact, CNN reported that “Oil is falling so much it’s now cheaper than it was before the Iran-Israel conflict.” Oof! Talk about perfect timing, eh Romm? Derp.
The next day, Vazquez did it again:
CNN is the latest to suffer from the utter humiliation of prophesying Armageddon-level economic catastrophe as a result of President Donald Trump’s military strikes on Iran, only to have their predictions collapse faster than Biden on the steps of Air Force One.
CNN writer Auzinea Bacon was adamant June 22 that “America’s economy” would face “a new war shock: Surging oil prices,” after Trump’s historic B-2 bomber attack to devastate Iran’s nuclear capabilities. “The American economy faces the unwelcome prospect of reignited inflation after the United States launched strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran,” Bacon screeched. “High oil and gas prices are a near certainty, experts say. The big question now: How long will the fossil fuels price spike last?” “Near certainty,” eh Bacon? Yikes! talk about opening yourself up for a devastating reality check.
[…]Bacon and her colleagues sure are just itching for some kind of disaster to unfold so they could just whip Trump with it, even if it means just mindlessly throwing spaghetti at the wall and making themselves look like idiots while doing it.
Vazquez didn’t explain why it was not reasonable to expect that oil prices might rise as a result of the missile strikes.
Meanwhile, intern Lucas Escala spent a June 25 post playing whataboutism to defend Trump:
Monday on MSNBC’s 11th Hour, host Stephanie Ruhle cued up one of the far left’s favorite history professors — Boston College’s Heather Cox Richardson — to weigh on President Trump’s weekend military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, but all it boiled down to was a partisan screed about Trump violating the Constitution from someone Ruhle dubbed “one of the best” at…dispensing objective analysis?
[…]Time for a bit of a fact check.
Richardson tried to make the Republican Party out to be a bunch of warbent, domineering politicians whose primary policy was violence. Of course, every president of the last 40 years, Republican or Democrat, was involved in some form of military operation. President Obama, for example, ordered the dropping of nearly 25,000 bombs on different parts of the Middle East, some of which resulted in civilian casualties.
Not only that, Obama’s strikes were also ordered without direct approval from Congress, a move that received nowhere near as much pushback at the time. Neither president’s attacks were unconstitutional, but the media can ignore precedent when it comes to pushing their agenda.
Talk about your doomist agitprop.