The Media Research Center has long simped for President Trump’s tariffs. That continued in a Feb. 14 post by Joseph Vazquez:
The Washington Post Editorial Board couldn’t have timed its faux-fussbudgeting over how the Trump tariffs were supposedly juicing Valentine’s Day inflation more perfectly (sarcasm). News was just released that inflation eased in January.
The Post blurted out at 5:45 am February 13, “What do bad breath, wilted flowers and protectionism have in common? They might spoil Valentine’s Day.”
“Bad breath” is right, because our faces contorted once we read the halitosis-infected headline following a Bureau of Labor Statistics report released just under 3 hours later showing that consumer prices increased 2.4 percent, which shattered naysayers’ expectations and defied “fears of a tariff-induced hike in overall costs,” as ABC News summarized. The Post would even release a story on the BLS data later admitting it was a “promising sign for” the “economy.”
Sheesh, you’d think The Post editorial board could have waited at least until after the BLS report data was released before it would make itself look stupid with this headline, “The love tax: Valentine’s Day costs more this year because of tariffs.”
[…]Wellington-Altus Chief Market Strategist James E. Thorne underscored February 13 in an X post that the latest inflation data shows prices are being “overwhelmingly” driven by shelter, but “[t]here is still no evidence of any tariff-related inflationary pressure.”
Vazquez didn’t mention that Thorne is the right-wing economist of the type he prefers. He went on to huff:
Well, as the latest BLS inflation data implies, tariffs are not the de facto “reason” for why life is more expensive. For that, it’s perhaps best to look at the out-of-control spending policies under Trump’s predecessor that caused overall prices to skyrocket over 20 percent in the first place.
When the Supreme Court overturned Trump’s tariffs a week later, Curtis Houck had a meltdown over it in a Feb. 20 post:
All the major broadcast networks — ABC, CBS, and NBC — broke in Friday morning with special reports on the Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 ruling declaring most of President Trump’s landmark tariffs unconstitutional. Unsurprisingly, ABC was almost ebullient in touting the ruling as “devastating,” “huge,” and “monumental” in hampering Trump’s presidency.
Correspondent Devin Dwyer — who took over as the lone Court reporter at ABC after Terry Moran’s axing — said this was “one of the most significant decisions on presidential power in decades”
[…]Of course, chief White House correspondent and Biden regime apple polisher Mary Bruce was almost giddy in touting the ruling as a “devastating,” “huge blow to this White House and to this President” with this entire presidency “now coming into question” with the tariff revenue possibly having to be refunded.
Funny that Houck doesn’t see Bruce as a real reporter, only a “Biden apple polisher.” Then again, this is a guy who ignores the fact that right-wing correspondents like Peter Doocy are Trump applie polishers.
Mark Finkelstein followed the next day:
On MS NOW’s The Weekend, as they were discussing the Supreme Court ruling striking down Trump’s tariffs, Axios Senior Economics Reporter Courtenay Brown suggested it’s very unlikely Walmart would lower prices if it receives tariff refunds.
Brown’s comments reflect a common media blind spot: the assumption that large retailers can simply pocket cost savings without regard to competition.
Brown treats Walmart as though it operates outside market discipline. In reality, the retail giant competes on razor-thin margins with Target, Amazon, Costco, and regional chains.
If tariff refunds materially reduce costs across major retailers, competitive dynamics would put downward pressure on prices — not because Walmart is charitable, but because it is competitive.
Finkelstein didn’t mention that the Trump administration is fighting tariff refunds.