"No Proof Cited"

The hypocrisy of Canadian media publishing an American Associated Press article entitled “Trump claims Obama had his phones wiretapped, no proof cited” astounds me. It is an astonishing example of the selectiveness of what type of claim demands proof. In this case, any chance the media gets to corner President Trump into admitting he may be making a false claim is an acceptable opportunity to demand proof. All the while, the same media outlets will generously, and without question, publish claims of sexual assault or historical sexual abuse without demanding proof. Claims of sexual assaults and abuse are published daily with the tone that the allegation is true. For example, “there may be more victims” or “the suspect has been charged and the investigation is ongoing” or “it is unclear where the sexual assault took

place”. These types of articles are framed to manipulate and enrage the reader while leaving out important factors such as exactly what the claim was, if it's plausible or fantastical, or if there was any material proof the alleged crime actually took place. The truth is, in these types of cases there often isn't any proof or convincing evidence. The only 'evidence' is the verbal claim and subjective narrative of the accuser, yet the reader will default to the belief that a crime took place and there was indeed sufficient evidence for the suspect to be charged. The reader will mutter to themselves, “Lock up that sexual deviant and throw away the key!” Yet all one needs to do is spend a day sifting through sexual assault and historical abuse legal cases on CANLII.org to read some of the trial verdicts only to find that many of these cases bare no convincing evidence that a crime took place alongside a likely (and oft ignored) motive for the accuser to make the false claim in the first place.

So my question is, how have we arrived to a day where it is acceptable to demand proof only in select claims of criminal activity, as opposed to all claims of criminal activity? One would think where it is less likely to be able to produce proof that a crime took place, such as in a sexual assault or historical abuse claim, that would provide us with more of an incentive to demand proof before setting out to complicity call for the destruction of a potentially innocent man's life.

In the case of Donald Trump's claim of illegal wire tapping there is the reasonable expectation that tangible, material objective proof would exist to either support his claim or disprove it. In such cases where material proof exists either way, it is left up to lawyers and courts to decide how to admit it as evidence, or how to block it as inadmissible evidence. Much like a game of chess. We shall see what the outcome of Trump's claim will be, if there will be an investigation. Nonetheless, I can bet you that because the media is demanding proof, that is what its readers and viewers are waiting for before coming to any solid conclusions themselves.