There is only one outfit more protective of Barack Obama than the Secret Service and its initials are C.N.N.
With their nemesis sitting in the oval office you can bet they are working overtime to protect the former president.
When Donald Trump tweeted early Saturday, "Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory", CNN dove in front of the incoming charge in a way that would make Candy Crowley proud.
Up went the headline, "Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping him."
"Falsely"? Did they check? Since when does a news outfit knock down a subject's assertion in their own headline?
Since November 8th, 2016 is when.
Another CNN web story read "Trump's baseless wiretap claim" and another, my personal favorite, "Trump, with no proof, claims Obama tapped his phones; former US official says 'this did not happen.'
Baking "with no proof" into a headline is redundant, as the word "claim" already implies there is no proof, but the phrase is used by the anti-Trump, pro-Obama activists running CNN to poison the notion that there is any credence whatsoever in the President's charge. And the "former US official" cited is Ben Rhodes, father of the Benghazi video narrative, brother of David Rhodes who is the President of CBS News, and Obama BFF.
It's not just CNN, there is an iron dome of media at the ready to protect Obama and strike Trump 24/7.
"Obama denies Trump's unsubstantiated claim that he wiretapped phones in Trump Tower" was how ABC positioned it. Trump's claim is "unsubstantiated" while Obama's denial need not be vetted, naturally.
NPR was less egregious but got the point across as well with "President Trump Accuses Obama Of 'Wire Tapping.' Provides No Evidence."
The BBC got right to the point with "Obama 'never ordered Trump tapping.'"
Editorializing inside a headline by television news is a new phenomenon and not employed when it comes to their progressive allies.
For example, last month CNN ran the headline "Pelosi: 'white supremacist' Bannon making America 'less safe'". If ever the term "with no proof" or "unsubstantiated" should be pressed into service you'd think this would be the time. But it wasn't. CNN was perfectly happy to let the notion that the president's closest advisor is a modern day Hitler, fly free around the atmosphere.
In January, CNN ran a headline after interviewing Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough, which read, "McDonough: Obama 'historically free of scandal'". Not so much as a "claims" made it into that beauty.
We can go way back to 2009 to learn from a CNN headline, "Obama: Police who arrested professor 'acted stupidly'". "Provides no evidence" was nowhere to be found.
President Obama is a God to many in the establishment media and Donald Trump is satan, so while the wiretapping story is hashed out, expect more capricious activism to be embedded within headlines. For that, there will be plenty of proof.