Trump and media | WarSclerotic | Page 2

Archive for the ‘Trump and media’ category

Trump is playing with the press

January 26, 2017

Trump is playing with the press, USA Today, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, January 26, 2017

He’s gaslighting them and they fall for it every time.

Why are the relations between Donald Trump and the press so bad? There are two reasons. One is that Trump is a Republican, and the press consists overwhelmingly of Democrats. But the other reason is that Trump likes it this way, because when the press is constantly attacking him over trivialities, it strengthens his position and weakens the press. Trump’s “outrageous” statements and tweets aren’t the product of impulsiveness, but part of a carefully maintained strategy that the press is too impulsive to resist.

The first thing to understand is that one of the changes going on with Trump generally is the renegotiation of various post-World War II institutional arrangements. One of those is the institutional arrangement involving the press and the White House. For decades, the press got special status because it was seen as both powerful and institutionally responsible. (And, of course, allied with the Democrats, who were mostly in charge of setting up those postwar institutional arrangements). Press quarters inside the White House and daily press briefings made it easy for everyone to get together on the story of the day.

Now those things have changed. If the press were powerful, it would have beaten Trump. If it were responsible, it wouldn’t be running away with fake news whenever it sees a chance to run something damaging to Trump. And, of course, there’s no alliance between Trump and the media, as there was with Obama.

So things will change. The press’s “insider” status — which it cherishes — is going to fade, with Trump’s press people even talking about moving them out of the White House entirely, and ignoring their existing pecking order in press conferences. (This is producing waves of status anxiety, as are many other Trump-induced institutional changes). And, having abandoned, quite openly, any pretense of objectivity and neutrality in the election, the press is going to be treated as an enemy by the Trump administration until further notice.

n fact, Trump’s basically gaslighting them. Knowing how much they hate him, he’s constantly provoking them to go over the top. Sean Spicer’s crowd-size remarks on Saturday were all about making them seem petty and negative. (And, possibly, teeing up crowd size comparisons at this Friday’s March For Life, which the press normally ignores but which Trump will probably force them to cover).

Trump knows that the press isn’t trusted very much, and that the less it’s trusted, the less it can hurt him. So he’s prodding reporters to do things that will make them less trusted, and they’re constantly taking the bait.

They’re taking the bait because they think he’s dumb, and impulsive, and lacking self-control — but he’s the one causing them to act in ways that are dumb and impulsive, and demonstrate lack of self-control. As Richard Fernandez writes on Facebook, they think he’s dumb because they think he has lousy taste, but there are a lot of scarily competent guys out there in the world who like white and gold furniture. And, I should note, Trump has more media experience than probably 99% of the people covering him. (As Obama operative Ben Rhodes gloated with regard to selling a dishonest story on the Iran deal, the average reporter the Obama White House dealt with “is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns.” In Rhodes’ words, “they literally know nothing.”)

If you read Don Surber’s election book, Trump the Press, it becomes pretty obvious that the press hasn’t been very good at understanding Trump’s strategies, or at responding to them. So far, there’s no sign of that changing as we move from the Trump campaign to the Trump administration.

So what should the press do? It can keep responding the way it has responded so far, or it can change its approach. But the latter may require more self-discipline than it’s got.

The killer counter-move for the press isn’t to double down on anti-Trump messaging. The counter-move is to bolster its own trustworthiness by acting (and being) more neutral and sober, and by being more trustworthy. If the news media actually focused on reporting facts accurately and straightforwardly, on leaving opinion to the pundits, and on giving Trump a clearly fair shake, then Trump’s tactics wouldn’t work, and any actual dirt they found on him would do actual damage. He’s betting on the press being insufficiently mature and self-controlled to manage that. So far, his bet is paying off.

That’s too bad. If we had a better press, we’d be much better off as a nation, and Trump’s strategy of capitalizing on the press’s flaws is good for Trump, but will probably make that problem worse, if such a thing is possible. But the truth is, we don’t have a better press. And as long as the press is mindlessly partisan and bereft of self-discipline, capitalizing on that is just good politics.

Categories: President Trump, Trump and media
Tags: President Trump, Trump and the Media

Comments: Be the first to comment

Upend the ‘Faux System’ of White House Journalism

January 25, 2017

Upend the ‘Faux System’ of White House Journalism, PJ Media, Roger L Simon, January 24, 2017

(Here’s a link to an article that focuses on the “SKYPE seats.” Four is a start, but more are needed. — DM)

Forget “faux news.” We have a “faux system” that needs to be upended. Without that, it’s “garbage in, garbage out,” as they say in computerland. And not just for that obvious reason defined by what Barack Obama might have termed a lack of “fairness” — that Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three percent but he loses the vote inside the briefing room by, I would guess, nearly ninety percent. It also makes for restricted viewpoints and boring, repetitive questions with little originality and no substantive information beyond what we could learn from communiques.

*****************************

Excuse my ignorance, but I had no idea — until reading about the recent kerfuffle cum journalist Twitter brawl — that by tradition the Associated Press always gets to ask the first question at White House press briefings. (It was given on Monday to the New York Post, creating consternation.)

Which leads me to ask: Who anointed the AP and made them king?

In fact, why would anybody ever, by tradition or for any other reason, always get to ask the first or even the fifth question at a White House press briefing or conference?

Or, to drill down a little further, why does any media outlet get preference over any other when it comes to asking questions? Or still further, who determines what reporters and organizations get into the briefing room in the first place to sit forever in rows one or two?

Well, um… professionalism.

Oh, I see. Is that a degree from Columbia Journalism School? Hemingway didn’t even go to college and could outwrite everyone in that briefing room by an exponential factor. Journalism isn’t brain surgery or even anesthesiology. It’s an occupation for ambitious hustlers with a gift for gab not so different from screenwriting, but not so high paying.

The truth is that those organizations are indeed there by tradition, a tradition of droit du seigneur and corporate thuggery that makes you yearn for the extension of anti-trust legislation.

You get the position, you keep the position. It’s a game of rich, entrenched bullies that happen to be monolithic media companies anxious to preserve their monopolies. We all know their names and logos, which have been drilled into us as the purveyors of all information from early childhood. As it was so succinctly put by A. J. Liebling back in 1960: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to the man who owns one.”

Does this system profit the people? Is it anything even approximating what the Founders envisioned for our press? Or does it exist for the benefit of those privileged journalists and their corporate bosses?

Pretty obvious, isn’t it? So when Sean Spicer announced the other day there would be four Skype seats in the White House press room for journalists from presumably smaller, outside-the-Beltway outfits, I applauded. But I asked — four? Why not forty?

Forget “faux news.” We have a “faux system” that needs to be upended. Without that, it’s “garbage in, garbage out,” as they say in computerland. And not just for that obvious reason defined by what Barack Obama might have termed a lack of “fairness” — that Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three percent but he loses the vote inside the briefing room by, I would guess, nearly ninety percent. It also makes for restricted viewpoints and boring, repetitive questions with little originality and no substantive information beyond what we could learn from communiques.

Actually, the system itself is institutionally unfair. It hasn’t changed in any significant sense in decades, as if the ghost of the UPI’s Helen “Sitting Buddha” Thomas were still plopped down in the front row as she was since the Kennedy administration.

The question is what to do about it. First of all, move out of that tiny briefing room with its (deliberately?) small number of seats that encourages this continued monopolistic system. Find a decent venue where a reasonable number can gather. Encourage new voices — not just journalists or even bloggers but maybe actual citizens to ask questions. The people, right and left, don’t need a filter. They know what they want to know, probably better than those who ask questions for them.

Yes, there are many problems inherent in this that would need to be worked out, many snafus, real and imagined, along the way. But this is the time to do something about a moribund system.

Will Trump and his administration have the courage to do it, to really upend what is essentially a license for permanent elitism?

We shall see. But instead of a perpetual battle between Trump and the press — a war that has barely started yet has already become tedious beyond words — it would be nice to find a new way of working that would actually inform the citizens of this democratic republic so they could make the necessary educated judgments. What we have now is close to the reverse.

Categories: Trump and media, Whitehouse press briefings
Tags: Trump and media, Whitehouse press briefings

Comments: Be the first to comment

Finally, a Republican Leader Playing Offense

January 16, 2017

Finally, a Republican Leader Playing Offense, American Thinker, Brian C. Joondeph, January 16, 2017

In politics, as in sports, there is an offense and defense. In some sports the same players assume both roles, as in basketball and hockey, where a team may shift roles back and forth quickly as the game proceeds. In other sports, such as football, there are separate teams for offense and defense, specialists in their specific roles.

Political games often have separate teams for offense and defense; sometimes the political leaders, often their surrogates. In the case of Democrats, the media takes a prominent team role playing both ends of the field. The media can ignore unfavorable stories. A recent example is the sudden lack of interest or coverage of the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting after the shooter’s Muslim conversion was identified. And the media can play offense, as they are with ongoing and relentless attempts to discredit the incoming Trump administration.

What’s new this political cycle is a sportsman who can play both ends of the field, and well. The pitcher who can hit home runs. The quarterback who can also play safety and intercept passes. The Michael Jordan who can not only score points, but also block shots and steal the ball.

Traditional Republicans specialize in defense, although poorly, and have little offensive skill. Normally Republicans are defending themselves against being racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-immigration, Islamophobic, starving children, pushing granny off the cliff, and wanting blacks back on plantations.

Republican offensive skills are on par with some of the more hapless NFL teams. First they needed control of the House to advance a conservative agenda, repeal Obamacare, seal the border, and so on. Done in 2010. Then they needed the Senate too. Done in 2014. Still the Republican offense was throwing incomplete passes and barely running past the line of scrimmage. Obama continued to score against the GOP.

They needed control of the White House, too, before going on offense. Done as of a couple of months ago. Yet Republican leaders still can’t figure out how to not fumble the ball. Speaker Paul Ryan is already chipping away at one of President-elect Trump’s signature issues, illegal immigration, by backpedaling on enforcing existing laws previously passed by his own Congress. Some offense. Fumbling the opening snap of the ball.

Enter the new star athlete, able to play offense and defense, able to hit and field the ball at the same time, both quite effectively. Without any assistance from the media. Donald Trump continues to befuddle the political-media establishment by throwing completions and intercepting passes from the other team. How does he do it?

His primary weapon is a combined baseball bat and glove, which can hit doubles and triples and grab line drives that are seemingly out of reach.

Twitter.

The @realDonaldTrump account is causing fits among the media chattering class. And their Democrat allies who have nothing in their playbook to stop Trump’s Twitter train.

Looking at Trump’s tweets over the past few days demonstrates his versatility on offense and defense.

Congressman John Lewis took a recent swipe at Trump saying, “I don’t see this President-elect as a legitimate president.” These types of comments are much like the classic question, “When did you stop beating your wife?” Unanswerable based on the original premise.

Rather than ignoring Lewis’s jab or trying to explain why he is legitimate, Trump hit back. He promptly tweeted, “Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart.” Stopping the fast break by blocking the shot. Great defense.

His recent press conference also showcased his defensive skills. Faced with a hostile press and squawking CNN reporter Jim Acosta, Trump looked to be overrun. Instead he intercepted the big media pass by calling out CNN for “fake news” and immediately changing the narrative. Then spiking the ball by tweeting, “@CNN is in a total meltdown with their FAKE NEWS because their ratings are tanking since election and their credibility will soon be gone!” To his 20 million Twitter followers, retweeted 34 thousand times to many more Twitter users.

Also, last week was the L.L. Bean controversy. A board member and company heiress contributed to a pro-Trump PAC. The #NeverTrumps immediately called for a boycott of L.L. Bean. Rather than distancing himself from L.L. Bean or returning the money as other Republicans might have done, Trump pushed back, tweeting, “Thank you to Linda Bean of L.L.Bean for your great support and courage. People will support you even more now. Buy L.L.Bean.”

This is not part of the Republican playbook, the weak defensive line actually able to stop any run up the middle. But while playing defense, Trump can still move the ball up the field.

Not focusing only on defending himself, Trump is also advancing his agenda. Obamacare repeal, one of his primary campaign issues, has not been forgotten. He tweeted at the same time as the above tweets, “The “Unaffordable” Care Act will soon be history!”

He also supported his cabinet nominees currently under Congressional scrutiny, “All of my Cabinet nominees are looking good and doing a great job. I want them to be themselves and express their own thoughts, not mine!”

Singles and doubles, gradually running up the score. While at the same time catching fly balls, and throwing out runners at first base.

Imagine if Mitt Romney could play offense and defense, rather than letting ground balls trickle through his legs then striking out. Romney had good ideas that he could not articulate or sell to the electorate. He was unable to shut down nonsensical memes such as not paying his taxes, mistreating the pet dog, bullying kids in high school, or causing his employees to die of cancer.

Romney allowed himself to be painted as an out-of-touch rich guy, entitled and uncaring. Not at all true, but pushed by the media and the Obama campaign, with no effective pushback from Romney. And the result was a second term for Obama.

What would Donald have done? Far worse was thrown at Trump, from both Republicans and Democrats, from the Clinton campaign and big media. Continuing to this day, less than a week before his inauguration. Yet Trump continues to intercept passes and move the ball down the field.

What a refreshing change for Republicans to have a party leader who can play offense and defense, effectively. An athlete the opposing team has never run up against, at least since the 1980s. And they have nothing in their playbook to stop him.

A new team. A new star athlete. What a great four, and hopefully eight, years ahead!

Categories: Trump and Democrats, Trump and media, Trump on the offensive
Tags: Trump and Democrats, Trump and media, Trump on the offensive

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump vs. the Media: New Sheriff in Town

January 13, 2017

Trump vs. the Media: New Sheriff in Town, PJ Media, Michael Walsh, January 13, 2017

President-elect Donald Trump gives a thumbs up to reporters at Mar-a-Lago, Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2016, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

President-elect Donald Trump gives a thumbs up to reporters at Mar-a-Lago, Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2016, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

At the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes has some thoughts on the president-elect’s recent press conference:

Donald Trump is in the rare position of loathing the media and dominating them—simultaneously. What more could a president-elect want as he enters the White House? Not much.

Reporters, columnists, talk radio blabbers, and even the elite media in Washington and New York think Trump is obligated to deal with them pretty much on their terms. Trump doesn’t agree. The notion of catering to them has never crossed his mind. And probably never will.

Instead we get wild events like Trump’s first press conference since winning the presidency. It was on his home turf at Trump Tower. He was in charge. The reporters were an unruly mob. As they tried to attract Trump’s attention, he coolly surveyed them before deciding who should ask him a question. He was dominant, the press pitiful.

They’ve been pitiful for a long time; it’s just that nobody’s pointed it out quite as forcefully as Trump. A bunch of Ivy League-credentialed throne-sniffers willing to suffer any indignity as long as they can stay close to the seat of power, they’ve long since confused themselves with those they cover. They’ve violated the first rule of working for a major media organization, which is confusing their sense of self-worth with whom they represent.

Reporters — even the vaunted White House press corps! — need to remember two things: 1) they can be fired at any time, and nobody will care, and 2) they need their employers more than their employers need them; these days, with journalistic standards at rock bottom, anyone with half a brain and a full set of teeth can work for the dying MSM.

With Trump, rules have changed. CNN was oblivious to this. It had played up the dubious “dossier” story about Trump. Yet, after Trump denounced the story, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta thought he was entitled to ask a question. Trump refused. “You are fake news,” he said, looking at Acosta.

Which leads us to the first change. And by the way, it applies across the board, not just to the media. The new rule is simple: When you attack Trump, he will hit back harder than you could have imagined. “He learned this in the New York media when he was a businessman,” Newt Gingrich said in a speech in December.

This is “Trump’s core model,” says Gingrich, who understands how Trump operates better than anyone else. There’s a reason for Trump’s counter-punching. He always wants to be on offense. “He’s on permanent offense,” Gingrich says. This, too, is a change. “He gets up in the morning, figuring out, how am I going to stay on offense?”

The media, like the Hun, is always either at your feet or at your throat. In collaboration with their Leftist buddies, they’ve been striking at the new president since Nov. 9 in an effort to de-legitimize him. They’re not going to like what’s about to happen to them, not one bit. Then again, that’s what soup kitchens and jobs retraining are for.

Categories: Media and Donald Trump, President Elect Trump, Trump and media
Tags: Media and Donald Trump, President Elect Trump, Trump and media

Comments: Be the first to comment

RIGHT ANGLE: “Like a F—ing Firing Squad!”

November 24, 2016

RIGHT ANGLE: “Like a F—ing Firing Squad!” Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, November 23, 2016

Categories: Media and Democrats, Media and DNC, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, President Elect Trump, Trump and media
Tags: Media and Democrats, Media and DNC, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, Presiden Elect Trump, Trump and media

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump Actually Treating Media Better Than They Deserve

November 24, 2016

Trump Actually Treating Media Better Than They Deserve, PJ Media, STEPHEN KRUISER, November 23, 2016

trumpandmedia

U.S. President elect Donald Trump reacts to a crowd gathered in the lobby of the New York Times building after a meeting in New York, U.S., November 22, 2016. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson – RTSSUB4

If the only thing Trump accomplishes in office is giving the GOP some lessons in handling the derelict, irresponsible MSM then he will have given the party a lasting gift that will reap rewards for it far into the future.

If some feelings are hurt along the way, they probably needed to be.

**************************

Thanksgiving week started off with some wonderful drama between President-elect Trump and various members of the mainstream media. The latter have spent eight years more or less on vacation. All they’ve really done since January 20th, 2009, is slightly modify White House press releases then release them as “news.” MSNBC didn’t even do that, opting instead for simply repeating administration talking points verbatim every night.

Two weeks ago, the laziness of the narrative mongers was fully exposed. Rather than pay attention to what was going on around them throughout the campaign, they clung harder to a story that they’d written and, just like in every Dan Brown novel, they didn’t have much of an ending planned. In fact, they were so invested in that story that it never occurred to them that their reality would be uncomfortable should their fairy tale ending not pan out.

Let me insert a disclaimer here for the perpetually obtuse: I am in no way advocating for government power over the press. A free and responsible press is essential in this country. Unfortunately, the responsibility train left the station long ago.

The week began with Trump meeting an array of television news hacks who were then treated to something they’ve never experienced before: an incoming Republican president who didn’t have a “bygones be bygones” switch.

It had all the trappings of a high-level rapprochement: President-elect Donald J. Trump, now the nation’s press critic in chief, inviting the leading anchors and executives of television news to join him on Monday for a private meeting of minds.On-air stars like Lester Holt, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos and Wolf Blitzer headed to Trump Tower for the off-the-record gathering, typically the kind of event where journalists and politicians clear the air after a hard-fought campaign.

Instead, the president-elect delivered a defiant message: You got it all wrong.

Mr. Trump, whose antagonism toward the news media was unusual even for a modern presidential candidate, described the television networks as dishonest in their reporting and shortsighted in missing the signs of his upset victory. He criticized some in the room by name, including CNN’s president, Jeffrey A. Zucker, according to multiple people briefed on the meeting who were granted anonymity to describe confidential discussions.

The First Amendment doesn’t offer freedom from criticism, but you wouldn’t have known that from the reactions yesterday.

Donald Trump scolded media big shots during an off-the-record Trump Tower sitdown on Monday, sources told the Post.

“It was like a f−−−ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter.

“Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said, ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing-down,” the source added.

A second source confirmed the fireworks.

“The meeting took place in a big boardroom and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks,” the other source said.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate — which was Martha Raddatz, who was also in the room.”

If the “source” is accurate in recounting what Trump says then I do see a real problem…with anyone who thinks he was out of line.

Katy Tur was especially awful, so if Trump was referring to her he wasn’t being mean, he was being honest. Most of her reporting was about how Trump’s rally crowds and the campaign were affecting the reporters. It was one one of the most tedious and prolonged cases of journalistic navel gazing in history, if not the longest. On Election Night, Tur was visibly distraught and did little more than repeat the list of reasons that the media thought people shouldn’t vote for Trump every time she was on air. That was annoying earlier in the evening, and maddening in the hours after the election had been called. It seemed that she thought she could undo the results if she just whined enough. She was filled with angst-ridden complaints. She wasn’t reporting at all.

That’s just one example. I could fill a book with what I watched on Election Night alone.

Trump moved on to the print media Tuesday, scheduling a meeting with The New York Times. Before the meeting, something happened that he didn’t like and he called it off, announcing it on Twitter in very Trumpian fashion:

He could have left it at that and let his people get to work on ironing things out, but he’s still the same guy from the campaign, so he got in a couple more digs.

Surely the venerable Gray Lady wouldn’t let the president-elect push them around, right?

Trump then gave the Times a long interview and if he was rough on them too they didn’t report about it.

What all of this means is that the media’s days of operating in a biased, knee-capping fashion towards a Republican president with impunity are over, at least while Donald Trump is that Republican. Hopefully, the GOP will learn some lessons along the way and start calling out the media when they are lying. Prior to Trump the only Republican who consistently rejected false premises and biased questions was Newt Gingrich. The rest of the GOP pretended to be above the fray, not willing to engage hostile adversaries, which is precisely what most of the press who cover the White House and Capitol Hill are.

Trump got into the fray and it ruffled the delicate sensibilities of people on both sides who were used to the game being played a certain way. That game’s rules don’t favor Republicans though, and it was well past the time when the party needed a candidate who didn’t play by them.

The media complaints about being called out by the president-elect, as well as the implication that it’s unprecedented are just more disingenuous behavior. If anyone out there has a recent total of the number of times President Obama has singled out Fox News I’d like to have it, as I lost count years ago. When he isn’t complaining about them, he’s leveling an accusatory gaze at talk radio. Here he is in a post-election interview with The New Yorker reminiscing about his Senate win and presidential campaign in ’08:

“People didn’t see me coming,” Obama said as we drove through the night. “In southern Illinois, in those counties I won, I was at V.F.W.s and fish fries hearing people’s stories and talking to folks, so that they knew me. They weren’t getting me through Fox or Rush Limbaugh or Breitbart or RedState.“In ’08, they saw me coming, but I was a guy named Barack Hussein Obama coming up against the Clinton machine, so no way! So they weren’t focussed on me, and I established a connection. Then came the stuff: Ayers and Reverend Wright and all the rest. What I’m suggesting is that the lens through which people understand politics and politicians is extraordinarily powerful. And Trump understands the new ecosystem, in which facts and truth don’t matter. You attract attention, rouse emotions, and then move on. You can surf those emotions. I’ve said it before, but if I watched Fox I wouldn’t vote for me!”

Grudge list much, Mr. President?

The fears of heavy-handed government involvement in the press are laughable too, given that the press got into bed with the Democrat side of government years ago, and has practically operated as a de facto wing of the White House Office of Communications for the past eight years.

Trump’s social media habits scare them the most, because as we saw with the New York Times meeting, he can take his case directly to the public. That connection has a lot of people freaked out because it seriously upsets the old order. No longer is everything filtered through the MSM. I’ve been saying since the beginning of the campaign that political science students will be studying Trump’s use of social media in this election for years to come.

Republicans who were uncomfortable with Trump’s rough style during the campaign and longed for Mitt Romney’s class and decency seemed to have forgotten that Romney’s fortunes turned on a dime because Candy Crowley ran interference for President Obama during a debate, fact-checking something Romney had asserted. One small problem, her fact-check was a lie. He essentially lost the election to a CNN reporter.

But, hey, above the fray and whatnot, right?

If the only thing Trump accomplishes in office is giving the GOP some lessons in handling the derelict, irresponsible MSM then he will have given the party a lasting gift that will reap rewards for it far into the future.

If some feelings are hurt along the way, they probably needed to be.

Categories: Media and Democrats, Media and Donald Trump, President Elect Trump, Trump and media
Tags: Media and Democrats, Media and Donald Trump, President Elect Trump, Trump and media

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump Takes on Holt and Hillary

September 27, 2016

Trump Takes on Holt and Hillary, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, September 27, 2016

kl_0

Like small boys jumping into a mud pile, media personalities had been urging each other on for weeks to abandon even the pretense of objectivity and just go after Trump. That’s what Holt did in his awkward and impotent way. And it proved to be ineffective as he quickly lost control of the debate. Holt, like the rest of his media cohort, had failed to understand that overt bias makes them less effective.

***********************

Donald Trump’s main opponent in the first presidential debate wasn’t Hillary Clinton. It was NBC anchor Lester Holt. Hillary, with forced smiles as brittle as china and an eerie fake laugh, continued her primary debate strategy of repeating canned talking points while waiting for the moderator to knock off her opponent. Hillary wasn’t there to debate, but to once again seem like the only possible option.

Holt’s job was to make her seem like the only possible option by targeting Trump.

There were fears that Lester Holt would be another Candy Crowley. That was unfair to Crowley. The entire debate was structurally biased. Its general topics were framed in narrow left-wing terms, instead of discussing the economy and moving the country forward, Holt defined the topics as class warfare and racial divisiveness. Even national security was narrowed down to Obama’s favorite battlespace, cyberspace, rather than the actual battlefield.

Trump was hit with repeated personal attacks and gotcha questions by Holt, who then took to arguing with him over the facts. Hillary, despite having been under investigation by the FBI, received only a perfunctory offer from Lester Holt to comment on her emails after Trump had raised the issue.

But Holt’s overt bias also proved to be his undoing. Candy Crowley had been effective because her interjection into the debate between Obama and Romney had come as something of a surprise. Holt made his agenda clear at the outset. And it also made him easy to ignore, as Trump frequently did.

Like small boys jumping into a mud pile, media personalities had been urging each other on for weeks to abandon even the pretense of objectivity and just go after Trump. That’s what Holt did in his awkward and impotent way. And it proved to be ineffective as he quickly lost control of the debate. Holt, like the rest of his media cohort, had failed to understand that overt bias makes them less effective.

Hillary’s role in the debate was to grit her teeth and smile awkwardly, then deliver a few scripted attacks and lines that would allow her media allies to hail her as the winner. It was an easy job that she botched.

The media headlines were pre-scripted. And the same stories would have run even if Hillary had gone full Linda Blair spinning her head around 360 degrees or been devoured by a herd of wild dingoes during the debate. Here’s CNN. “Clinton puts Trump on defense at first debate.” And here’s the Washington Post. “Trump vs. Clinton: Her jabs put him on the defensive in first debate.” This is what happens when the Clinton campaign writes your stories for you. They all sound the same.

But the only thing Hillary accomplished was to remind Americans of how unpleasant, insincere, untrustworthy and irritating she was. The pathological sense of entitlement, the political narcissism, the empty promises, the hollow rhetoric and the artificial attempts to connect to people whom she clearly despised were all on display here. The lady in red had nothing new to offer, either in policy or in her attacks on Trump. Like her, it was all reruns. And it was grating enough not to bear rewatching.

Hillary claimed to want to discuss policy, but she launched the first personal attack and between her and Holt, these supposedly serious personalities took the debate into the arena of petty malice. A country full of people who had lost hope had not tuned in to hear about Trump’s taxes or his comments about Rosie O’Donnell. In a particularly surreal moment, Hillary claimed to have brought an architect who had suffered at Trump’s hands. Because whom could working class people relate to better than an architect.

And it was obvious why Hillary and Holt had to embark on these desperate stunts.

Hillary’s message was a contradictory mess of promises to fix problems that existed for inexplicable reasons under Obama. Everything is already okay and she has a plan to fix all that. When Trump exploited this contradiction, her messaging completely collapsed into its own black hole.

The real agenda of the debate was to discredit Trump. Instead he came out appearing presidential, patiently listening to another Hillary rant, gamely sipping a glass of water every time she touted her website, and enduring it with the same wry expression that much of the audience was wearing.

Trump was at his best when puncturing the media and Hillary’s hypocrisy. Asked about his taxes, he demanded that Hillary release her emails. Challenged on Iraq, he pushed back on Libya. Where Hillary offered artificial bonhomie, pasting on plastic smiles and uploading fake laughs, he was natural. Nothing about Trump’s reactions or responses were faked. And that still remains a shock to the system.

And it is very much a system that we saw on display here tonight. It’s a system that Lester Holt and Hillary Clinton are a part of. It’s a system that has run this country deep into the ground.

Instead of destroying Trump, Holt’s bias brought the system out onto the stage. It reminded everyone that the national election was being hijacked just as the Democratic primaries had been. It showed viewers that the system was rigged and that it was rigged to select Hillary Clinton for the White House.

The fundamental question of this election is whether this country will be run by the people or the system. Trump reminded everyone that he was not the candidate of the system. The media’s post-debate analysis will tell us what the system thinks about the debate. But everyone already knows that. The system wants its own perpetuation. It wants, in Hillary’s words, more “investments.” That is the system’s euphemism for spending. It wants to export more jobs and import more migrants.

It wants to transform America into a grotesque reflection of its own warped processes.

Hillary Clinton is the perfect embodiment of the system. Artificial, unnatural and corrupt. And Lester Holt took on his role as the system’s feeble gatekeeper. But it’s not the system that the public wants. It seeks someone to smash the system. That is the source of Trump’s popularity. It is what makes him so threatening.

The debate was not about any of its topics, not the official ones or unofficial ones. It was about the subtext of the system. It was about what the system does to protect itself. Instead of a debate, what the people witnessed was the media hive trying to destroy an intruder while protecting its queen.

And once again, the system failed. Its media gatekeeper drone failed. The queen is in check.

Categories: 2016 elections, 2016 presidential debates, Hillary and media, Trump and media
Tags: Trump and media

Comments: Be the first to comment

CNN now literally putting words in Donald Trump’s mouth

September 20, 2016

CNN now literally putting words in Donald Trump’s mouth, Hot Air, Jazz Shaw, September 20, 2016

Somebody in the production booth had to consciously make the decision to add in a word which Trump did not utter and, even more to the point, put it in quotes so it looked like an exact transcript of what the candidate said. There’s simply no way that the reasonable observer could write that off as an accident.

***********************

What’s going on at CNN in terms of their “hard news” editing process these days? The latest questionable achievement in journalism coming out of Atlanta caught my attention by way of Scott Adams’ Twitter feed yesterday, highlighting an instance where The Most Trusted Name in News ran a chyron which rather pointedly edited comments made by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. While discussing the issue of profiling and once again using Israel as an example, The Donald failed to use a word which would have made the comment far more incendiary to the Left, so CNN took the liberty of inserting it for him.

cswsuplukaanihe

Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays

@CNN adds the word “racial” to Trump’s quote. Deeply irresponsible. Crosses the line. #Trump

6:44 PM – 19 Sep 2016

You’ll notice the difference between the caption and the actual text of the remarks comes down to one word. The Hill highlights precisely how they molded the narrative.

CNN added the word “racial” to Donald Trump’s Monday comments on terrorism and immigration, and is running headlines reporting that the GOP nominee is advocating “racial profiling”.

But a review of the transcript of Trump’s comments to Fox News that CNN quoted, however, shows that Trump never put the word “racial” in front of “profiling.”

“You know in Israel, they profile,” Trump said Monday to Fox News. “They’ve done an unbelievable job — as good as you can do. But Israel has done an unbelievable job. And they’ll profile. They profile. They see somebody that’s suspicious. They will profile. They will take that person in. They will check out.”

Even if this were examined in a vacuum, that’s a fairly egregious bit of editing. Just as with American law enforcement agencies, Israel’s defense forces engage in profiling. Using patterns and prior records of criminal activity (or terrorism in the case of Israel) is how you maximize your chances of success. But when you stick the word “racial” in front of it you have yourself a liberal talking point which is a sure fire way to gin up the base and get out the vote for Democrats.

But we don’t have to look at this in a vacuum. It’s even more remarkable when we consider this chyron edit as part of a larger pattern. Somebody in the production booth had to consciously make the decision to add in a word which Trump did not utter and, even more to the point, put it in quotes so it looked like an exact transcript of what the candidate said. There’s simply no way that the reasonable observer could write that off as an accident.

Now add it in with the recent incident where CNN blurred out the logo on a Trump shirt being worn by a subject being interviewed for a story having nothing to do with the election. These aren’t things that just happen by accident in an operation of that size and reach. There’s a culture in every newsroom and it bleeds over into the published product they put out. Of course, CNN isn’t alone in this pattern. Just look at the CBS incident last week where their evening news segment edited out a critical three seconds of an interview with Bill Clinton when he talked about his wife’s history of fainting spells. Sure, they wrote that off as having been done purely in the interest of time, but is anyone actually buying that?

CNN can’t afford to deliver the impression that they’re trying to put a thumb on the scale this close to the election. Their place in the food chain is supposed to be the “hard news” middle ground between MSNBC on the Left and Fox News on the Right. But there’s something going on behind the scenes at that network, and they owe their viewers an explanation for how this keeps happening and what they plan to do to correct it.

Categories: 2016 elections, CNN, Donald Trump, Profiling, Racism, Trump and media
Tags: CNN, Donald Trump, Profiling, Racism, Trump and media

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Real Reason the Mainstream Media Hates Trump

August 10, 2016

The Real Reason the Mainstream Media Hates Trump, PJ Media, Roger L Simon, August 9, 2016

trump_angy_msm_reporters_banner_8-9-16-1.sized-770x415xc

In a much talked about August 7 piece—“Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism”—New York Times “mediator” Jim Rutenberg takes the mainstream media out of the closet and publicly declares them in the tank for Trump.

As front page news this is not exactly man bites dog, but he goes further actually to excuse this bias because, after all, Trump is Trump:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

How’re you supposed to cover a woman whose family foundation helped Putin corner the uranium market? Oh, never mind. Rutenberg’s point is that the barbarian Trump has put those Fourth Estate idealists in a quandary as never before. The poor dears always try to be neutral, but The Donald is just too many bridges too far. They just can’t be even-handed anymore. (Please stay clear of your computer screen if you start to sputter.)

But the truth is that—although he can be a loudmouthed blowhard with poor impulse control—Trump is not remotely what they say he is: a racist, sexist demagogue. In fact, if you bother to look it up, he was more than a decade ahead of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on one of the most “sainted” of all liberal issues—gay marriage. But don’t expect to see that covered by Gutenberg, et al.

The real reason the MSM disdains, even loathes, Trump is that he threatens what I call The Big Wink, which means he threatens them

Qu’est-ce que c’est The Big Wink?

We saw it writ large during the (media pronounced) highly successful Democratic National Convention—the key topic of which, beside the excoriation of Donald Trump, was the rescue of the middle class, a middle class, no one admitted, that has done surpassingly poorly during the Obama administration. Improving the situation of minorities was also, as always, invoked, even though minorities, particularly blacks, have done even more wretchedly over the last eight years.

Unspoken, not surprisingly, was a truly uncomfortable truth—the people who have done best under the Obama administration are the rich. No one said or did anything for eight years as the labor participation rate declined to new lows and stocks rose to new highs. The rich profited at the expense of the poor (somewhat) and the middle class (a lot). The Democrats have become the secret—or not so secret—party of the rich.

The media are, for the most part, those rich people, the most successful of them ensconced well up into the higher reaches of the one percent. They also are people who like to think good of themselves, that they are “doing good.” For the older ones, now in control, this comes from their “fight the power” college days, only now they are the power. How do you resolve such a contradiction? By making morally narcissistic pronouncements on behalf of the disadvantaged while privately hoping for, even working for, the status quo.

No more perfect candidate of the status quo has ever come along than Hillary Clinton. She personifies the status quo. Nothing will change under Hillary—for the country or the media. It’s all downhill from here.

Her lifetime reputation as a serial liar and crony capitalist only amplifies this. It’s hard to believe she really means it when she makes such outrageous proposals as her confiscatory capital gains plan that could cause a Depression. Wink, wink, she’s a Wall Street girl—and everybody, especially the media, knows it. She won’t do anything the slightest bit extreme. And they like it that way, even if they don’t admit it to themselves. Better for the old 401K and property values in the Meatpacking District. No one really believes Hillary will follow through with those dopey leftwing proposals—not that she has anything else to offer, but that doesn’t matter. Nor will she put more than a slight delay in the TPP trade agreement. It’s all a Big Wink, designed to fool the Sanders supporters and, of course, the always handy minorities. Power and money are everything.

Donald Trump is a wholly different matter. No one, especially the media, knows what he really intends to do. The media doesn’t like this because if there’s one thing they don’t like, no matter what they profess, it is change. Or loss of control.

No wonder they don’t like Donald and seize on his every miscue or aside as if he were the second coming of Attila bent on overrunning our nation and quite possibly the world. (Compare that to how they shrug their shoulders at Hillary’s actual misdeeds.) What they hate most of all is the temerity of the vulgar Queens billionaire in exposing the haute bourgeois lifestyle of the Upper West Side for what it is—fake and self-serving. The way things look now, they won’t let him survive it.

Categories: 2016 elections, Hillary and media, Trump and media
Tags: Trump and media

Comments: Be the first to comment

ABC Panel Picks Up Secret Sexist ‘Code’ in Trump’s Hillary Criticisms

August 8, 2016

ABC Panel Picks Up Secret Sexist ‘Code’ in Trump’s Hillary Criticisms, MRC News Busters, Nicholas Fondacaro, August 7, 2016

(Any attack on Our Beloved Hillary is an attack on All women! All emphasis below is from the link.– DM)

The panel featured during ABC’s This Week’s“Powerhouse Roundtable!” seemed have been picking up some radio interference Sunday, because they kept insisting they were hearing sexist “code” coming from Donald Trump. “The emphasis on unhinged and she doesn’t look presidential is totally code for “we shouldn’t elect a woman,”” spat commentator Cokie Roberts, “That is exactly what that is.” Sexist dog whistles have become a common complaint of hers for the Trump campaign.

Roberts complaints of sexism were also directed at Trump’s many supporters as well. When discussing a new ABC poll that that showed Trump down eight percentage points to Hillary, and had Trump leading with white males, Roberts couldn’t hold back her disdain for them. “The numbers in the poll that really struck me, other than the fact that white men have a lot of answering to do, is that— “cares about people like you,” that is a key question.”

And it wasn’t just Roberts who was hearing the faint sounds of sexism emanating from Trump in Morse Code, journalist Roland Martin was hearing it as well. Martin pointed to Trump’s recently unveiled team of economic advisers as his evidence:

ROLAND MARTIN: When you talk about the care for everyday people. What does he do this week? He appoints a team of economic advisers. All men.

MARTHA RADDATZ: All Men. All men.

COKIE ROBERTS: All white men.

MARTIN: All hedge fund guys. Tell me how that’s going to work?

The panel also demonstrated a huge double standard between their coverage of Trump and Clinton when it comes to pooh-poohing their attacks. “He questions her mental fitness. Nobody in America questions her mental fitness,” exclaimed CNBC contributor Sara Fagen. “But they question his,” Martin responded gleefully. So, it’s not right for Trump to question her “mental fitness,” but when Clinton fear monger’s by warning that Trump can’t be trusted with the nuclear codes she’s doing the exact same thing.

It seems to have become common for ABC to link Trump to sexism. On Thursday evening during World News Tonight reporter Cecilia Vega did a segment where she said Trump blames the victim in sexual harassment cases.

Partial transcript below:

ABC
This Week
August 7, 2016
9:43:30 AM Eastern

COKIE ROBERTS: The numbers in the poll that really struck me, other than the fact that white men have a lot of answering to do, is that— “cares about people like you,” that is a key question. Hillary Clinton was up 20 points on that. And that is often the question that tells you whether somebody is going to get elected.

…

abc

ROLAND MARTIN: This is a guy who wants to be whiner in chief. He complains about everything. The issue is this: Can he deal with issues? Remember what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, he doubt know a lot about the issues out there. He what, at some point he has to focus on. You can wing this thing. You can sort of talk in broad terms. But at some point, you have to get down to the nitty-gritty.

When you talk about the care for everyday people. What does he do this week? He appoints a team of economic advisers. All men.

MARTHA RADDATZ: All Men. All men.

ROBERTS: All white men.

MARTIN: All hedge fund guys. Tell me how that’s going to work?

…

SARA FAGEN: She is such a week candidate. You saw it again just yesterday where she was stumbling over her answers on how she handled her E-Mail controversy.

RADDATZ: And what about his tweeting about how she short-circuited, brainwashing?

FAGEN: Short-circuiting—

ROBERTS: Unhinged.

FAGEN: Unhinged saying that she— he questions her mental fitness. Nobody in America questions her mental fitness.They think she’s liberal—

[Crosstalk]

MARTIN: But they question his!

RADDATZ: They question her honesty.

FAGEN: They question her honesty, that’s right.

ROBERTS: But. But. But, the emphasis on unhinged and she doesn’t look presidential is totally code for we shouldn’t elect a woman. That is exactly what that is.

FAGEN: I don’t know if I agree entirely with that.

Categories: 2016 elections, Hillary and media, Trump and media
Tags: Trump and media

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives