How the media serves as Trump's pawn

Sam Smith - News of Trump's unscheduled physical exam once again brings up the issue of how the media handles a president who has been credited  with over 13,000 lies or misstatements since he entered office. In this case, the BBC reported:

The White House confirmed he underwent an exam and some laboratory tests on Saturday at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.The visit was not in the president's public schedule, and no details of the tests have been released.

It comes 10 months after an annual exam found him "in very good health".
In a statement, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said the latest tests were prompted by a "free weekend" in the president's diary, and that Mr Trump remained healthy and energetic without complaints.

"Further speculation beyond the extensive and honest info I put out is wholly irresponsible and dangerous for the country," she added in a tweet.

Beyond the oddity of a premature, unannounced physical, we have a previous record from 2015, as reported by Slare:

In 2015, as a presidential candidate, Trump released a letter signed by his personal doctor that said he would be “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency” and that his “physical strength and stamina are extraordinary.” The doctor later conceded, after previously denying it, that the letter had been dictated by Trump. 

In short, the president has already lied on this matter yet the media feels compelled to report it as a fact. This idiosyncrasy is due in no small part to the fact the Donald Trump is now a high public official rather than the television actor and real estate hustler he was before.  The unspoken rules of the media are that objectivity requires you to report what such prom9inent officials say regardless of their records of truthfulness.

But is it really objective to blandly quote someone who lies as frequently as Trump? There are several alternatives.

One is to delay the quote until its facts have been checked. This is not the Washington media tradition but one that should now be considered.

Another is to include a conditional sentence such as "the accuracy of the President's claims have not yet been confirmed."

Or the media could feature a daily fact check on the president or any other official with a record of lying.

In any case, it's a matter worthy of serious discussion from journalism schools to the White House press room. Otherwise the medias will continue to be in collusion with political prevarication.