Trump says, "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me, but plenty of people have written that she was extremely quiet, and it looked like she had nothing to say."
That gets reported (on NBC and most other mainstream media) as...
Trump implied that Khan's wife, Ghazala Khan, "wasn't allowed to have anything to say" when she stood next to her husband at the convention.
Well, no he didn't imply that at all. The left simply inferred it. Trump hypothesized the possibility that she wasn't allowed to speak, and made the observation that she looked like she had nothing to say. That's all he did. He didn't imply a thing other than an observation.
On the other hand, the left-wing media reporting hypocritical side, Trump said, ""While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things"
That gets reported as, {Oh, no, no, no, wait just a cotton pickin' minute there, Trumpy!}...
Khan did not say Trump had never read the Constitution. He said, "Donald Trump, you're asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the United States Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy."
True enough, Kahn did not say that Trump had never read the Constitution. He merely implied it, strongly, and with great theater to reinforce the implication.
And that, boys and girls, is modern journalism at it's finest.
(Back in the late 70s or early 80s, there was an international basketball exhibition in which the US and the USSR played each other. The US won the game. Pravda reported the results as "USSR finished second, the USA finished second-to-last." As misleading as that is, at least it was accurate. Can't really say that about our propaganda media anymore.)
