Which Scandal Gets Defined as a 'Distraction'?

Tim Graham on Aug 6, 2025

There's something funny in scandal politics when people accuse each other of pushing a "distraction." So if Donald Trump tries to change the subject to Russia collusion-hoaxing, it's a "distraction" from the media's energetic Jeffrey Epstein obsession.

All this really proves is that the liberal media elites get unhappy whenever anyone tries to offer a different topic than the one they demand we all be magnetically focused on. The networks don't want any contrary new information added to their narrative on how Trump won in 2016 with Russian assistance -- if you're not going to accept their original accusations of collusion.

Their framing is presented as the only acceptable framing, the one based in "reality." The public is always supposed to be focused on Republican scandals. They're the only ones that matter. Democrat scandals are reflexively dismissed as "no evidence" nothingburgers, a smelly wastebasket of "unsubstantiated" junk.

It's transparently partisan "news judgment."

This gives you the same giggle as when reporters complain this Russia thing is an "eight-year-old" story as they push "new" material on Trump's alleged birthday card to Epstein in 2003. They aerobically pushed unproven E. Jean Carroll allegations of Trump sexually assaulting her inside a department store sometime in the mid-1990s. Which year? Who needs to know? Just slap Trump with some vague civil charges of being "liable for sexual abuse," and move on.

Maybe we should suggest that this whole Trump-and-Epstein scandal is a distraction from the much more intricate friendship and Epstein-Island-touring of former President Bill Clinton. While the networks dump hours of coverage on Trump and Epstein, a search of Nexis transcripts of CBS News in the last month found only four cursory mentions of Clinton.

Two had nothing to do with Epstein, and the other two were on the same morning, as reporter Nancy Cordes briefly mentioned Clinton and fashion designer Vera Wang were "other big names on the list" meeting with Epstein.

Or try the "PBS News Hour" gang. They mentioned Clinton in their David Gergen obituary, in a story on Trump besmirching Smithsonian impeachment exhibits, and just one brief mention about a Clinton-Epstein link from David Brooks. They're all too "distracted" from deciding the question of whether Clinton has a truer association with Epstein's sex trafficking than Trump does.

Naturally, CNN's Brian Stelter channeled the anti-Fox, anti-Trump aggression in his newsletter as he attacked what he called the "Fox Outrage-Industrial Complex." He claimed, "Fox News shows mentioned Sydney Sweeney and her ad 766 times in the span of a week. Jeffrey Epstein's name came up 53 times that same week." See? Epstein is the "real" scandal, and the other story is a scam.

Then, turn it back on CNN. Let's guess they mentioned Epstein 766 times and Sydney Sweeney 53. Does anyone believe CNN's treatment of Trump cannot be defined as a "CNN Outrage-Industrial Complex"?

For a while, it was the Avenatti Outrage-Industrial Complex, and the Pee Tapes Outrage-Industrial Complex, and the Revoking Jim Acosta's Press Credentials Outrage-Industrial Complex.

The Epstein sex-trafficking aftermath is too horrible and tragic to make outrage jokes about. But a quick Nexis search of CNN found 92 Epstein-and-Trump entries in the last week, and just 10 mentioning Sydney Sweeney.

When ABC, CBS and NBC combined for 2,284 minutes on Russiagate just on the evening newscasts over two years, one might stagger toward a "distraction." How much is too much? This is why people flip to "Wheel of Fortune." It's a brief distraction from the grand distraction.

========

Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Tim Graham and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.