What unsubstantiated 'news stories' about Democrats would you like to see?

The media has created a new standard for reporting "news": it is appropriate to report anything, anything at all, as long as you preface it by saying it is "unsubstantiated."  That is the new standard for reporting about Donald Trump.  But what if the media applied the same reporting standard to Democrats?

1) Would Politico post unreliable reports about Congressman Charlie Crist and his alleged relationship with a certain Green Iguana?

2) Would the Washington Post hypothesize about whether George Stephanopoulos is still mentally ill?

3) Would The New York Times suddenly change its tune and start speculating about where Obama was really born and what his real religion is?

4) Would ABC News run with speculation about who Vera Baker is, and what her alleged relationship with President Obama is or might have been?

5) Do you think we could expect to see unsubstantiated reports about Senator Cory Booker's dating preferences?

6) Might the media published unsourced documents detailing Hillary Clinton's alleged involvement in Vince Foster's death?

7) Would the media publish claims from an anonymous source about the precise nature of the relationship between Hillary and her "body woman,"  Huma Abedin?

8) And whom has Bill Clinton been violating lately?  Wave some cash around hookers in Harlem and report whatever they say!

Can you imagine the media doing any of this?  No, of course not.  Because these are all Democrats, and the media holds them to a different standard; they never publish damaging personal information even if they are sure of the veracity.

In the spirit of citizen-journalism, please let us know in the comments section what unsubstantiated rumors against Democrats you would like reporting on.  Remember, as long as you admit they are unsubstantiated, no matter how wild the topic, no matter how crazy the allegation, it is now appropriate to talk about them under the new media standard of reporting.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

The media has created a new standard for reporting "news": it is appropriate to report anything, anything at all, as long as you preface it by saying it is "unsubstantiated."  That is the new standard for reporting about Donald Trump.  But what if the media applied the same reporting standard to Democrats?

1) Would Politico post unreliable reports about Congressman Charlie Crist and his alleged relationship with a certain Green Iguana?

2) Would the Washington Post hypothesize about whether George Stephanopoulos is still mentally ill?

3) Would The New York Times suddenly change its tune and start speculating about where Obama was really born and what his real religion is?

4) Would ABC News run with speculation about who Vera Baker is, and what her alleged relationship with President Obama is or might have been?

5) Do you think we could expect to see unsubstantiated reports about Senator Cory Booker's dating preferences?

6) Might the media published unsourced documents detailing Hillary Clinton's alleged involvement in Vince Foster's death?

7) Would the media publish claims from an anonymous source about the precise nature of the relationship between Hillary and her "body woman,"  Huma Abedin?

8) And whom has Bill Clinton been violating lately?  Wave some cash around hookers in Harlem and report whatever they say!

Can you imagine the media doing any of this?  No, of course not.  Because these are all Democrats, and the media holds them to a different standard; they never publish damaging personal information even if they are sure of the veracity.

In the spirit of citizen-journalism, please let us know in the comments section what unsubstantiated rumors against Democrats you would like reporting on.  Remember, as long as you admit they are unsubstantiated, no matter how wild the topic, no matter how crazy the allegation, it is now appropriate to talk about them under the new media standard of reporting.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

RECENT VIDEOS