*This article was originally published in The Topeka Capital-Journal, June 4, 2016.
When Paul Ryan expressed his tepid unwillingness to support Donald Trump last month, he was heralded as the last best hope of principled conservatism. But the headlines made his “criticism” sound much more ferocious than it was: “The Paul Ryan vs. Donald Trump Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party, Explained;” “The Highest Ranking Republican Will Not Support Donald Trump;” “Paul Ryan smacked down Donald Trump. Here’s why.”
Here’s what Chris Cillizza described as a “smack down” in the Washington Post (Ryan is talking about withholding his endorsement of Trump): “I’m not there right now. And I hope to, though, and I want to. But I think what is required is that we unify the party, and I think the bulk of the burden on unifying the party will have to come from our presumptive nominee.”
After smashing Trump into the ground with that savage rebuke, Ryan hit him again: “I think conservatives want to know: Does he share our values and our principles on limited government, the proper role of the executive, adherence to the Constitution? There’s a lot of questions that conservatives, I think, are going to want answers to.”
Journalists love to inflate page views with sensational headlines, but the above examples were particularly egregious – they had almost nothing in common with what they purported to describe.
Matt Johnson's stuff 
Leave a comment