You’d think after a decade of covering Donald Trump’s political career, the media would have learned some lessons.

You’d be wrong.

The coverage of the Arlington National Cemetery “controversy” shows the press using the same overwrought language, anonymous sources and liberal critics that they constantly return to, despite being proven wrong time and again.

Take the Washington Post’s account, “How a Trump visit sparked turmoil at America’s most sacred cemetery.”

At issue: whether Trump’s team was allowed to take pictures in a certain part of the cemetery, and whether an employee was in the wrong to try to stop them.

In paragraph 20 — 20! — the father of a soldier who died in the Afghanistan bombing sparked by the Harris-Biden administration’s disastrous withdrawal says he welcomed Trump to the cemetery.

“We invited him. He didn’t come to us,” said Darin Hoover, father of Staff Sgt. Darin “Taylor” Hoover. “He has shown nothing but sincerity to all of us and for what happened to our children, and for anybody else to try to take that away from the ceremony — both at the wreath-laying and at the graveside — is unconscionable.”

Any editor reading that would think: That’s it, case closed.

The family members of the fallen soldiers are the ones who matter most in this scenario.

If they aren’t angry or offended, how is this even a story?

But that’s not going to stop the Washington Post.

Before it bothers to quote Hoover, it leans on anonymous sources saying cemetery officials were “deeply concerned” about a Trump visit. Then it cites a member of VoteVets, a liberal group that had nothing to do with the ceremony, saying it was “disgusting.”

Again, that’s before asking the opinion of the father of the Marine who died, whose grave Trump was visiting.

In the end, this turned out to be a single disagreement between one Trump staffer and one Arlington employee. The press nonetheless turned it into the scandal of the month.

This has happened so often, it has become a cliche.

Consider the saga of Michael Flynn, whom the WaPo had breathlessly claimed “discussed sanctions with Russia” in the transition period in 2016 before Trump took office.

After paragraphs and paragraphs of hand-wringing about whether this was wrong, it quoted by name Michael McFaul, who served as US ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, defending what happened. He even admitted he had Moscow meetings “in the weeks leading up to Obama’s 2008 election win.”

One can only conclude that Flynn did nothing wrong. Yet for this, the other Post won a Pulitzer — and Flynn lost his position in the administration.

The media have not changed, but voters have. They’ve stopped believing the blindly sourced conspiracies and the vaunted claims about broken norms. And journalists have only themselves to blame.