Eddie Scarry of the Washington Examiner critiques national media coverage of President Trump’s speech in Poland.

He complimented America’s allies while calling on Russia to “cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes.”

And Trump said the U.S. “will always welcome new citizens who share our values and love our people” but that “our borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind.”

Any sane person might hear those words and call it at least an O.K. speech.

But because the subject doesn’t relate to Russia stealing the election from Hillary Clinton or to an erosion of press freedom by way of Trump tweeting insults at cable news, the media are left sputtering for novel ways to hate the president.

The Washington Post’s news article on Trump’s speech described it as “a dark and provocative address with nationalist overtones.” …

… At the news website Vox, foreign policy writer Sarah Wildman dubbed Trump’s speech “an alt-right manifesto” with “the type of dire, last-chance wording often utilized by the far right.”

(There’s a tiny East Asian country that has used perhaps more “dire” and “last-chance wording” lately but Wildman was referring to when Trump said, “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.”)

CNN is already against the wall after recently retracting a report on a Trump associate’s supposed ties to Russian money.

But in a rush to find something wrong with Trump on his trip, White House correspondent Jim Acosta bruised his network again.

Before his speech in Poland, Trump said in a press conference that he had found that only “three or four” out 17 U.S. intelligence agencies made formal conclusions about Russia’s election interference.

Acosta called Trump’s comments “fake news” and wondered, “Where does that number come from? Where does this ‘three or four’ number come from? My suspicion … is that if we go to the administration and ask them for this question, I’m not so sure we’re going to get an answer.”

Except everyone else by that point, including the New York Times, had known that Trump was correct. Just four agencies have formally and independently made their conclusions about the election interference.