“Are they actually this ignorant, or are they spinning the truth?” This is what I’ve been asking myself quite often recently when reading articles from the liberal media. A recent piece from The Atlantic on recent terror attacks is a perfect example: it paints Donald Trump as a leader of a Christian war against Islam, and Barack Obama as an accomplished and wise statesman. Both characterizations are, indeed, exaggerations of reality.

The Atlantic and other liberal news outlets are trying to make Trump a failure before he even assumes office. In reality, they are terrified of Trump actually succeeding in office, because that means their hissy-fits over his confirmation by the electoral college would be for naught.

The Atlantic lacks any kind of contextual awareness in this piece about Obama’s and Trump’s reactions to the attacks in Berlin and Turkey yesterday:

“The first difference, unsurprisingly, is that the Obama administration exercised caution. It said the Berlin atrocity ‘appears to have been a terrorist attack.’ Team Trump, by contrast, simply called it a ‘horrifying terror attack.’ The White House avoided speculation about the Turkish assassin’s motive. Team Trump, by contrast, called him a ‘radical Islamic terrorist.'”

Peter Beinart, the author of the piece, is trying to make a politically charged story out of nothing by leaving out key details. The only difference between the first part of the statement is that Obama said the attack in Berlin “appears” to have been a terrorist attack, while Trump’s statement held nothing back in referring to the incident as a “horrifying terror attack.”

I see no problem here, especially considering the past eight years of President Obama neglecting to call a situation like it is. Let’s recall how Team Obama seemed confused about the premeditated nature of the attack on Benghazi, instead initially referring to it as result of “natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video [that] were used as an excuse by extremists”.

The second part of Beinart’s assertion is devoid of common sense. Again, the White House refused to inject the phrase “radical Islamic terrorist,” while Trump’s statement did inject the phrase. But, for Beinart, it was more convenient for his article to leave out the fact that the Turkish assassin yelled, “Allahu Akbar! Do not forget Aleppo! Do not forget Syria! Do not forget Aleppo! Do not forget Syria!” Since the shooting, and after Beinart’s lazy article was published, books about al-Qaeda were found in the gunman’s home. But we shouldn’t jump to conclusions, right?

Certainly, the assassin’s rant highlights the genocide in Syria as his cause (which will not be erased from history as part of President Obama’s legacy). But it seems intentional that the author did not want to clue his readers in on the religious nature of his statement. This type of writing is irresponsible and inflammatory, the exact characterization Beinart wishes to make of Trump.