If you ["you," the "working journalist"] view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.Key word: normal.
But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?Boldface added.
Covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system. It threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse opponent, Hillary Clinton, who should draw plenty more tough-minded coverage herself.Yes, yes, I know. Journalists already routinely threw the advantage to Democratic Party candidates. It's not some new threat. It is the norm. So what's he talking about? What's this new threshold the journalists are crossing? Why talk about this now? To excuse the failure to cover stories about Hillary? Rutenberg worries about the journalistic value called "balance," then tries to discount it:
But let’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season: His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.But he had 16 rivals, and they were all, in sequence, attacking him. Even if he got 6 times as much as his closest rival (presumably Ted Cruz), what was the total amount his 16 rivals got as they all chose the strategy of hitting him? And what about the Democrats who got free media to attack him? I don't have enough numbers to do the math, but it sounds as though more free media was used attacking him than he himself received. I'm not convinced "Balance has been on vacation"! The balance has gone against Trump from Day 1. How the hell did he fight through all of that?
Rutenberg (and the journalists he's talking to and about) must be dumbfounded by the power of this man to survive the months of brutal beating he got in the media. What if journalists don't have the power to destroy? What if Trump gains power from their opposition?
It must be terrifying to stand naked. But there is cover if Hillary can only be carried to the finish line. They won't cover her, but she can cover them.
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
RIP: The New York Times 9/18/1851 - 8/7/2016.
Sadly, on this date, The New York Times as a newspaper ceased to exist. Replacing the Times is the 'New, New York Times Opinion Journal. On it's Masthead, the NNYT will replace 'All the news that's fit to print' with "All the news that we think is fit for you."
Yes. The NYT, and most media, for that matter, are "them" to Trump's "us." So every time the media dings Trump, it only fuels his supporters' fire.
More propaganda on top of propaganda.
Its a machine, this dude is just a cog in it.
They are all simply components.
I think the constant message of Trump's "danger" is laughable. Imagine how our pearl-clutching media lightweights would respond to a Teddy Roosevelt, or an Andrew Jackson? Would they be shocked by Thomas Jefferson, a man who talked of "refreshing" the tree of liberty with "blood"?
Rutenberg's key premise is that "you" (the working journalist) "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 . . . ."
Here's the thing (or at least a thing): If you really had a basis for believing those things about Trump, then maybe you would be justified in throwing out the old rule book. ("Mr. Hitler said 'we must kill all the Jews,' although the Clinton campaign sharply questioned the morality and efficacy of such a policy.")
But it's all so much bullshit echo-chamber nonsense. I have lots of problems with Donald Trump, and would have preferred it if almost anyone out of the field of 17 had received the nomination. But the "working journalist's" need to turn every Republican into a fascist gets really old; yes, even when it's Trump.
"You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable."
Bullshit. It's like a nice pair of broken in loafers.
I don't understand why they care. Hillary is trouncing Trump in the polls. She has this thing won already, we just have to get the silly voting over with first. Why, I'm not really sure. She is so far ahead she could take a few naps and still win the race.
Sometimes I think they are building a fiction in order to justify something. But I can never put my finger on what, exactly, that something is.
Trump wasn't attacked in turn by 16 rivals. I bet 99.99% of people could not even name all 16 rivals, some of them were so unimportant. Most of the rest concentrated their fire on one another while Trump skated because everyone thought it was a publicity stunt until he started spending real money on his campaign. Then it was too late because even then Kasich refused to attack him and Cruz was the most hated candidate in the field.
Trump is not normal. Althouse's blindness to this is really strange.
If anyone has been watching project veritas, they've shown repeatedly how easy it is to cheat when voting. The answer to this, from all the media I've heard, has been to convict project veritas for pointing out the holes in the election process.
Get that? It's easy to cheat. Instead of fixing it, demonize the one pointing it out.
How does anyone have any confidence in our elections knowing has easy it is to cheat?
But look at trump! Oh no!
They have to destroy Trump as much as possible, because Grandma Clinton is not well. I hope Althouse links the pictures of them literally hauling her up the stairs because Hillary cannot climb stairs anymore.
I hope Althouse talks about the black guy that is always right by Hillary; with a syringe in hand, ready for her seizures.
Bill Clinton is straight out of Weekend at Bernies right now, and Hillary is practically a corpse walking. What happens when she has a seizure on stage, or during the debate?
This election will depend on events, no question.
She is so far ahead she could take a few naps
Just a few?
Nobody likes to discover that they are displaying signs of impotence. Often it leads to more aggressive display of the supposed potency.
There is no norm of objectivity.
There is a norm of pretended objectivity and a different one of selective objectivity.
Kind of like judges, except at the leading edge of acceptable thought, the norm for judges is becoming the impossibility of objectivity.
"Trump is not normal. Althouse's blindness to this is really strange."
I'm fairly confident she gets that he's not conventional, at least as national politicians go. But the suggestion that this makes him abnormal (in the sense of, y'know, mentally ill or dangerous), would seem to require some additional proof or analysis; mass hysteria doesn't count.
Perhaps, candidates should be required to take the MMPI test and have its results made immediately public.
However, Ms, Clinton is unlikely to agree---Because that test has a very reliable "Lie Scale.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/08/us/politics/national-security-letter-trump.html?_r=0
A Letter From G.O.P. National Security Officials Opposing Donald Trump
Dozens of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter saying they will not vote for Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee. AUG. 8, 2016
These security officials are taking Trump's unsuitability to be President seriously. Maybe they too are worried about his mental health.
The echo chamber among journalists about Trump's non-normality is deafening.
So an Iranian Hillary mentioned in her email as being a "help to us " was executed by Iran. Watch the media run to cover the story.
It's nice in a way that all of these Democratic operatives with by-lines are now dropping any pretense of not being partisan hacks.
"...Because that test has a very reliable "Lie" Scale."
But also a very obvious one that can be gamed by someone smart enough who has a background in academia and is used to taking lots of tests and is also familiar with their underlying structures...
One depressing element to this is how many Americans buy into the worldview espoused by the MSM. It is no longer a truism to suggest that only the Left Coast buys into it. A signal gift that Trump and his voters have given, if only enough of us could appreciate it, is the pulling back of the curtain to reveal the humbug "two-party" system flashing the steam, drums, and cymbals so beloved of the Times. It is shocking to see how duped so many of us were that the GOP was a true party of opposition to the creeping statist suppression of freedom, supposedly channeling Ronald Reagan at every opportunity. We should have taken more heed of how the GOPe supported MSM and Dem attacks on the Tea Party.
The decrepit and disintegrating international financial system will flummox whoever gets sworn in next January, and more of us will get out our pitchforks. But then it will be too late, and chaos and fear will stalk the land for some time to come. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that generations a century or so from now will draw the conclusions we, in our self-absorption, could not.
Balance in journalism never showed up. Never was there. It is a figment of these partisan hack's imagination.
Most newspapers in the US--make that all newspapers save maybe for the Wall Street Journal and throw away shopper papers are partisan rags. and I'm not too sure about the Wall Street Journal.
In the early 80's I made a dozen or so business trips to Lagos Nigeria. We were trying to set up a subsidiary company there. With Nigeria's indigenization laws, you had to give about 60% of your company (at least nominally so) to a Nigerian national. And there was an endless series of meetings with various government ministries and bureaus. That meant that each trip was at least a couple of weeks long--and there was a lot of downtime while waiting for the next appointment with the Deputy Assistant Undersecretary in Charge of Jerking Foreigners Around.
So I got to read the Lagos newspapers a lot while waiting for those meetings. I actually enjoyed reading those papers. There were 8 or 9 local newspapers, each one a shameless partisan rag for a particular political party. And there were a lot of different political parties in Nigeria, so you didn't have one paper forced to double up and be partisan for two parties. There were enough parties to go around.
The difference between the Lagos newspaper that was shamelessly in the tank for the NNP (Nigerian National Party) and the New York Times that is shamelessly in the tank for the Hillary wing of the Democrat party is that Lagos paper didn't claim to be the "objective paper of record". Otherwise there was no difference in the partisan nature of their reporting.
The Democrat party control the media (with few exceptions), control education, and the financial institutions. The have taken over Health Care with O care and of energy water and all other minerals with EPA edicts, They have used the IRS and the Justice Department as a political tool. They are very close to using "Global Warming" as an eco-political tool. The name for a system that allows government control of means of production via private surrogate is - fascism.
The establishment is desperate, phobic beyond measure, and it's reflected in their wildly clinging -- grasping, really -- to traditional articles of leverage. It's a stark contrast to their enthusiastic consummation and ostensibly grudging adoption of Obama who progressed the status quo.
But also a very obvious one that can be gamed by someone smart enough...
That's what worries her handlers.
I don't like Trump, but I don't have to like him to recall that the traditional media have slimed every Republican presidential candidate at least since I began to vote. They are the little boy who cried wolf again and again and again, and now, when they REALLY mean it (if they mean it more than when they said the same things about Romney and McCain and Dole), they're shocked, shocked that nobody's paying attention.
It doesn't help that HIllary Clinton, she of the skeleton-stuffed walk-in closet, never merits skeptical scrutiny from the same people.
Actions have consequences.
Excerpt from the 50 GOP top national security official's letter:
From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.
Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.
Obama will never again stand for election, he rules by decree because the American people elected a congress specifically to counter his policies. Obama was introduced to politics by an America-hating terrorist (Bill Ayers), and as state senator Obama represented a city known world wide for its political corruption.
And the pro-Obama NY Times doesn't like Trump because Trump is not normal? What the Hell does the NY Times think is normal? The batty old woman who got the Democrat nomination? The washed up socialist who ran against her?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/state-dodges-questions-on-clinton-emails-about-iranian-scientist/article/2598858
Speaking of a person whom the FBI found "extremely careless" but not guilty of "gross negligence"
She got an Iranian who tried to help us executed by Iran by her careless handling of classified information.
Comey must feel great right now.
The New York Times published a letter from all the war criminals who participated in the Pearl Harbor attack on Iraq, in which about 120,000 people died and 6 Trillion dollars were borrowed to fund it.
They say Trump is dangerous and not qualified to be President.
As noted in that very piece, Trump's victory in the GOP primary was due in large part to the overwhelming, unprecedented amount of free media which he received from, among others, Joe Scarborough.
MSM Steps to Win the Election for HRC:
1) "Help" the GOP to choose a ridiculous, toxic candidate by showering him in free, mostly friendly/neutral media, while at the same time portraying his main rivals as a scary zealot or a low-energy zombie.
2) Once Trump is nominated, "discover" that not only is he loud and ridiculous, he's actually a closet fascist, racist baby-hater. Clearly he cannot be allowed to win, no matter what the cost in journalistic "ethics".
3) Help a septuagenarian robot with a chronic short-circuit into the White House.
Another excerpt from the letter:
"We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history."
"He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal."
"I'm not going to comment on what he may or may not have done for the United States government, but in the emails that were on Hillary Clinton's private server, there were conversations among her senior advisers about this gentleman," Tom Coburn
You have the love the little damage control for Hillary at the end, "fueling GOP accusations..." As if that was the worst aspect of the story.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/08/executed-iranian-scientist-discussed-in-clinton-server-emails-fueling-gop-accusations.html
It's a delicate balancing act. If they become too nakedly partisan they risk losing the 15 to 20% of their readership that believes that they're objective. The trick is to only report those truths that are conducive to your narrative........George Orwell's book, Homage to Catalonia, reported unpleasant facts about the Communists in Spain. Those facts were not denied, but the book was simply not reviewed or publicized. It only sold a few hundred copies. Ditto with Dos Pasos and his defense of his friend, Juan Robles who was murderd and slandered by the Communists. ........Malcolm Muggeridge was one of the two reporters who told of the famine in the Soviet Union. He worked for the Guardian, then as now a left wing publication. They published his pieces but selectively held them back until such time as there was an atrocity story from Germany that they could splash on the front page which would overshadow the famine story.
This isn't even a news story in the mainstream media, but Valerie Plame will sure get their dander up, even though it wasn't Bush's people who leaked her position, they still blame Bush. But Clinton will skate on this, probably because she was too stupid to know the risks of her "extreme carelessness."
@Unknown,
Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.
Ah, yes, Unknown chimes in with a touching naivete' in the utter lack of self-interest of our nation's think-tankers & ex-government officials. An indulgence a lefty would never, ever extend to let's say, a report by the Chamber of Commerce.
Well, Unknown, I live & work in the DC area, including with some of these sorts of people. You know why they're having a conniption fit? Because Trump is completely outside of their networks. By definition, then, he can't know anything, because if he knew anything he'd be a known in their network. Only they have any worthwhile knowledge of a subject X, e.g. Chinese foreign policy. This knowledge constitutes their self-identity & their self worth. They get together in conferences & symposia & to quote the Wolfman from "Pulp Fiction" "they stand around & suck each others' dicks".
Among these people, the Spirit of the Cincinnati is totally dead. Government belongs to those whose job it is to run government. These folks get out of grad school, & boom, start sucking at the non-profit or government teat, & stay attached until retirement.
Their bitching & moaning is self-interest, & nothing more. Look at their concerns: "character, values". Oh, jeezo-peep, like Hillary or any number of political candidates has any of those things!
Unknown, I'm gonna let you in a little secret: the people who wake up one fine morning & think "My job in life is to push around my fellow citizens", those people are mostly insane. Narcissists & sociopaths are the majority. Is Trump deranged -- yes! But, the rest of them are, too. They just get better press because they're socially acceptable kinds of narcissists & sociopaths. You want an example? Ted Kennedy. I mean, you can fucking kill someone & still skate among these monsters.
The spokesman said, “Amiri gave vital information about the country to the enemy,” according to Iran’s official news agency IRNA.
The spokesman did not say why officials had not announced the sentence earlier, according to AP news agency.
Iran hanged Amiri during the same week it executed a number of militants.
No mention that he was discussed in Clinton's "private email."
So the WaPo is doing what it can to cover for Hillary.
Notice that Althouse never says anything complimentary about Trump is terms of his ability to better the country. Althouse admires his ability to "win," i.e., to remain stupid and boorish and still get away with it (even though he isn't, at this point). This is akin to the losers who are the core of Trump's fan base: They thrill at Trump's insults to those who have targeted them, the losers, with expressions of disrepect.
And that's it.
It's not about country or principle. It's not about liberty or the Constitution. Trump supporters don't give a damn about any of that. They sense that those with power think they're crud, and they want revenge.
You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.
Horseshit. That is the land they live in and always have. That they think otherwise is pure fantasy.
The people who bitterly cling to elective abortion as a rite, clinical cannibalism as a virtue, class diversity to deny individual dignity, redistributive change to devalue capital and labor, progressive wars in social justice adventurism, anti-native policies to coverup their crimes, etc. will vote for Clinton or another establishment candidate to progress their status quo.
@Brian,
hey sense that those with power think they're crud, and they want revenge.
You say revenge. They say "accountability".
Tell me, Brian, when's the last time a Federal official faced legal punishment for anything? The federal government fucks up over & over & absolutely nothing happens to these people!
Do I think that Trump can bring these people to heel? No, but, these sort of federal scumbags are among Hillary's biggest supporters, because they know she'll have their backs.
Damn, how much of the current debased state of our various institutions can be traced back to the idea "this time, it's different!" and the actions that followed therefrom?
They used the same line of attack against the Tea Party. Claimed that they were violent and "not normal" and used this as a justification to sick the IRS on them. Now people seem happy to support this kind of politics in America. Using institutions that were once considered nonpartisan for partisan attacks.
The Clintons corrupt everything they touch.
Young Hegelian, conservatives had no complaints about these people during GW Bush's presidency.
Another excerpt from the letter:
"Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America's vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the Democratic values that on which U.S. foreign policy must be based."
"We're not really objective, but this guy is so bad we don't have to pretend not to be objective nor feel shame or guilt at our utter lack of objectivity this time."
Now, say this while simultaneously patting yourself on the back for your bravery and insight...and bingo! you're a journalist.
"Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America's vital national interests,
Hillary discusses helping an Iranian scientist on an insecure server. He gets executed. Her judgement is terrible.
@unknown,
conservatives had no complaints about these people during GW Bush's presidency.
The sort of conservatives who now back Trump had no use for these people under Bush, either.
Unknown, you're a liberal, & you haven't followed the right-wing blogosphere for years like many of the folks here. Don't go assuming things about "the right-wingers" that are most likely not true. There was much anger with Bush during his 8 years from certain segments of the right, & much anger with the "neo-con" foreign policy wonks.
Why did the police raid the homes of people connected with Scott Walker in WI, again? Why were the highly unusual "John Doe" prosecutions carried out to begin with?
Oh, right, it was a special case, these were special circumstances, "this time it's different."
Same-same w/the IRS' targeting, as mentioned above. It just be just plain bad luck that these special circumstances just happen to be those where the Left can use power/trample institutional checks to attack or gain advantage over the non-Left. Total coincidence.
Another excerpt from the letter:
“Unlike previous Presidents who had limited experience in foreign affairs, Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.He continues to display an alarming ignorance of basic facts of contemporary international politics.”
How did Hillary's understand of America's vital interests get us involved in a civil war in Syria, backing the rebels, that has led to the destabilization of Turkey, and has unleashed a summer of terror on Europe?
How did Hillary's superior understanding of "America's vital interests" lead us to overthrow Qaddafi and create what Obama has called a "shit show" in Libya?
Can we ask these experts that?
Another excerpt from the letter, this will be the last excerpt I'll post so carry on your conspiracy theories regarding Clinton and the nuclear scientist executed in Iran.
“Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America’s vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the democratic values on which U.S. foreign policy must be based. At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends.”
No. It's high time. She wants it.
. At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends.
Pretty rich to use that as an accusation after 7.5 years of President "Israel bad, Iran good" Obama, Unknown. Wow, I hate to think what it would be like to have a President who treats traditional allies badly while treating traditional adversaries generously...it's so darn hard to imagine!
One of the benefits of objective reporting is that it makes news useful to a greater number of people. It does not require that it be watered down. For years I've listened to the evening newscast of the Berkeley communist station KPFA because it is much fairer and more sophisticated than the newscasts of the mainstream media. KPFA’s newscasts often feature quotes and perspectives from across the political spectrum, including conservatives. Freed from the need to buck up Democrats, their reporters present a multiplicity of views in a way that help you understand the reasons behind conflicts. When overt leftist bias appears in their reporting, it tends to be more honest than the mainstream media, who are increasingly devoted to the storyline “Democrats good, Republicans bad” regardless of the issue.
At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends
While she votes for one war "With conviction" and to prove that conviction, she gets us involved in two more wars! The Hillary hat-trick.
While I agree entirely with the Fishwrap of Record that Donald Trump is abnormal, I have not yet come to grips with why it is necessary for reporters to write stories about themselves.
When a company hires a new CEO, they don't usually look for someone in the same field of business. Rather, they look for someone with a record of success at steering a business in the right direction. Trump's lack of knowledge about politics and even government gives him the advantage of a fresh perspective, unhampered by the stagnant philosophies of the status quo.
Anybody else notice that "Unknown"'s draw attention to Hillary's manifold failures as senator and secretary of state?
Tim in Vermont -
Hillary set up that private server to hide her personal enrichment deals. She also used it for "work" and now a Iranian who was "helpful" to the US has been brutally executed.
This would end the political career of anyone else.
Her media (the media) won't touch it.
You need not consider, or treat, these persons like independent creators making their own decisions and acting on their personal judgement or biases. They are hired, organized and directed. Their opinions are dictated to them.
Imagine them as a battalion of Hessian musketeers in disciplined ranks, firing volleys on command, and you will be very close to the truth.
"he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends" To my knowledge, he has not strengthened our prime adversaries, Iran, Russia, and China, the way O has, he has not facilitated the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq and Libya, or stiffed the Israelis, or told the Brits that they'd go back to end of queue if they vote for Brexit. I didn't want Trump etc. etc. but attacking him, simply on the basis of his rhetoric, without comparison with the actually harmful actions of O and Hill is absurd.
YoungHegelian: Unknown, you're a liberal, & you haven't followed the right-wing blogosphere for years like many of the folks here. Don't go assuming things about "the right-wingers" that are most likely not true. There was much anger with Bush during his 8 years from certain segments of the right, & much anger with the "neo-con" foreign policy wonks.
Re this and the previous batch of anti-Trump foreign policy expert signatories: it's almost of if they think that Joe Average Citizen has the very highest confidence in the competence and sanity of the people, right or left, who've been running our foreign policy for the last 30 years.
Unknown's problem isn't that he (she?) is a liberal, it's that he's a dumb partisan. There are plenty of intelligent liberals who know they have common ground with righties on foreign policy. Which means that they're #NeverHillary, and some of 'em will even vote for Trump precisely because of foreign policy considerations.
@Anglelyne,
There can't possibly be any dumber or more partisan dopes than those of the Trump Party. Keep telling yourselves you are different than the conservatives who wrapped themselves in the flag when Bush invaded Iraq. Deny that you and your Trumpist brethren voted for Bush twice. Idiots and hypocrites, we see you.
The Monmouth University survey shows Clinton leading the flagging GOP nominee Donald Trump, 50 percent to 37 percent, among likely voters. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson is at 7 percent, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein is at 2 percent. Only 3 percent of likely voters are undecided.
Politico
I see Dave "Ratfucker" Weigel has been pressed into service to tamp down any Hillary in poor health stories. Hey if the press had no problems covering for FDR's wheelchair they certainly one think twice about carrying hillary's bloated corpse across the finish line.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/08/armed-with-junk-science-and-old-photos-critics-question-hillaryshealth/
The Donald outweighs Hillary by probably 100 pounds, speaking of bloat. He's a male, older than Hillary, paunchy, flabby, ruddy faced and excitable, I'd say he has a better chance of dropping dead than Hillary.
. She also used it for "work" and now a Iranian who was "helpful" to the US has been brutally executed.
Not sure hanging is "brutal." When they sodomized Qaddafi with, what was it, Obama's Nobel Peace Prize?, that was brutal. When they dug up Richard III, they found from the skeleton, that they had done the same thing to him with a sword, a long and proud tradition, I guess.
I love how "Unknown" comes here to breathlessly deliver the news that the same Republican foreign policy experts who brought us the war in Iraq are foursquare behind Hillary. What a surprise!
You people have very short memories.
Washington (CNN)It should be an easy -- if simplistic -- attack line for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee: Hillary Clinton's support for military intervention in Libya left the country in chaos.
But it's not so straightforward for Donald Trump, who has reversed himself twice on the Obama administration's Libya strategy. And in the process, Trump is undermining what could be a powerful rhetorical weapon at a time when the 2016 campaign is dominated by his controversial statements on race that have been roundly criticized -- even by fellow Republicans.
Trump's latest Libya flip came on Sunday when he told CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday that he would have favored a "surgical shot" to kill Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi.
It was another 180-degree swivel from his statement in a 2011 video blog post in which he urged the Obama administration to "knock this guy out very quickly, very surgically."
T in V, those 50 GOP security officials are not behind Hillary, did you even bother to read their letter? They are more concerned with the train wreck named Trump.
Unknown said...
"T in V, those 50 GOP security officials are not behind Hillary, did you even bother to read their letter? They are more concerned with the train wreck named Trump."
If they are not behind Hillary, why are they determined to help her win the election, become President of the United States of America, and, not coincidentally, allow them to continue feeding on the carcass of a once-great nation?
What they mean is that they are not sure they can buffalo Trump. He might just tell them to take their imaginary expertise and their warm personal relations with the World's less savory despots and get themselves to a nunnery.
"It's not about country or principle. It's not about liberty or the Constitution. Trump supporters don't give a damn about any of that. They sense that those with power think they're crud, and they want revenge.
8/8/16, 5:36 PM"
We all can't hate the other for the right reasons, your reasons.
Think how boring that would be!
Diversity of hatred is still diversity friendo, and we know you don't want everyone to think of you as a bigot against diversity, now do we Brian?
"Vox editor in chief Ezra Klein" says about all that needs to be said about what this freak calls "journalism".
Hillary, neither, but the media norm is "protect her at all costs" to any semblance of your objectivity, which is locked away in a deep hole with a password you are NOT allowed to know.
One sub-text of the piece is that he is telling us what he considers to be "normal." Not in his words but by implication all that we have seen his "normal" journalists do over the years is what defines their "normal."
If you, as I, think that their definition is whack then this piece has done work it didn't intend by exposing, espousing, the idea that the beliefs and actions of major media journalists are what they see as the norm and they write from that perspective about the rest of us.
Rutenberg gives the mediaswine carte blanche to view their bias and corruption as a public service.
Blogger Mattman26 said...
"Trump is not normal. Althouse's blindness to this is really strange."
Althouse will not vote for Trump. She is just having some fun. She is likely to vote for whatshisname, the liberal libertarian.
Media overblowing over the past decades has created a very large number of people who have become immune to their scaremongering, so now when we have Trump--who may or may not be worthy of their fears--the same attacks mean less. He's a cruel businessman who ripped people off and never did anything for anyone? We heard the same thing about Romney. He's a bigot who only draws support from white men? We heard the same about every GOP nominee since Goldwater. He's an idiot? We heard the same about Bush, and before that, Reagan. Warmonger? McCain.
So even if Trump is all those things, for real this time, you can't expect everyone to believe it--they're going to wonder why this time is any different. Aren't ALL Republican nominees racist, dumb, warmongering business-crooks? What's so abnormal about Trump, then?
Cry wolf for a few decades and don't be surprised when people tune it out.
I'm a nurse now. I was assigned to a behavioral unit. I learn something there about normal. I found normal, not in any individual, for each person is different and hence can never really be classified as normal, e.g., two or more characteristics is all that is needed to make one different. No one is normal, because we are all different; hence each of us cannot be defined as normal.
But wait, I found it, normal that is, and it is very close to you. Normal can only be found on your wishing machine dial and maybe the dictionary.
Does it not take an abnormal reporter or politician to tell another that this candidate is not normal? Does this reporter or politician have a degree in psychology; if so is he or she in violation of HIPPA rules and the Goldwater Rule? I see plenty of lawyers’ fees coming. Love ya too, Sgt Pete RN
Hillary is the one to turned Iraq into a "shit show" (Obama's words) not Trump. Though somebody has to tell him to stop answering hypotheticals put to him by people whose mission it is to get Hillary elected.
Hillary's Hat Trick: Iraq, Syria, Libya, three wars that have destabilized even the EU. Trump answered a hypothetical, which he should not have done.
But it is a comfort to know that Unknown has such high regard for the authors of the Iraq War, and that they are doing all they can to get Hillary elected, even though they support some other candidate who isn't running and won't run.
Media 2016: “Trump is insane”
Media 2016: “Men who mutilate their genitals, wear wigs & dresses & want to have babies are courageous voices of reason.”
Members of the press are at it again. The are blatantly pushing Crooked-Incompetent-Diseased Hillary, over the finish line.
The NY Times’ Jim Rutenberg explains why the press has thrown off the fig leaf of impartiality and embraced open partisanship because to do other than try to torpedo Trump would “… be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.”
James Taranto notes that:
“what the candidates will be like” is a matter of speculation, not a fact that can be “ferreted out.”… and more important, the premise of Rutenberg’s column is that reporters have already made up their minds about Trump. If that is the case, then what they are ferreting out is facts that reinforce their preconceptions, and that they hope will persuade voters to cast ballots against Trump. That’s called “opposition research,” and it is a job for campaign operatives, not journalists."
Of course journalists are Democrat operative with bylines and it doesn't take a Jim Rutenberg column to reveal what is obvious to everyone except the criminally delusional.
I would note that during the election of 2008 I perceived that Barack Hussein Obama would be a horrible President. This was at a time when the press was not at all concerned with his beliefs, his ideology, his associates or his character but with the color of his skin, having determined that putting a Black man in office would be great for the country and the world. This was a time when his election was hailed by all as the moment that the seas would recede, the planet would heal and the races would be reconciled. This was time when the color of Obama's skin and his love of all things Muslim would reconcile the world to the the United States.
How’s that working out?
Sad. Very sad to see the eunuch's of Hillery clinging to the hope that The Trump can be killed before his culture prevails again, prevails in great ways again.
The World Government would be stopped cold if Trump's nationalism wins. And that would ruin everything.
Trump supporters don't give a damn about any of that. They sense that those with power think they're crud, and they want revenge.
More like self-defense. And you blame them! To you they are crud.
You wouldn't blame Arabs for blowing us up, but you blame Joe Sixpack for not wanting to lie down and be obliterated.
Upon hearing Rush read this article I was struck by the similarity to 2008. Back then it was conservatives and libertarieans who were saying "Watch out" for the guy with no experience on the verge of winning it all. I read or heard that Obama wanted the price of electricity to skyrocket, that all 57 states would submit to his will, that because he was born a Muslim he would pull out of Iraq and let Iran "win" that conflict, that he palled around with terrorists, that he belonged to a "church" that preached anti-American and anti-semitic hate disguised as Black Nationalism, that the press wouldn't hold him accountable because he has a D after his name, that he was secretly pro-Gay marriage and wanted Obamacare to pave the way for single payer plans, that he would offer racial healing.
Only the last one was 100% wrong.
Funny but the NYT never mentioned how far out of the mainstream he was.
In 2008 we had the Journ-O-List "professionals" who joined together to promote Obama and kill any stories detrimental to Dear Leader.
In 2016 we have "journalists" taking it upon themselves to be oppo researchers for Hillary.
Que sera' sera'! Or in English: Same old, same old!
Rutenberg (and the journalists he's talking to and about) must be dumbfounded by the power of this man to survive the months of brutal beating he got in the media. What if journalists don't have the power to destroy? What if Trump gains power from their opposition?
I don't think the media is "dumbfounded" at all. What I hear them say is that Trump appealed to a vocal and highly determined group of mostly non-college whites highly attuned to and skeptical of media favoritism. The attacks on Trump strengthened their support for the guy. Trump advocates like Hannity repeatedly told their audiences that the Left and educated Republicans looked down on them, which helped create a sense of unity. Republican campaign managers were each fighting "lane" strategies pursuing their own self interests, so there was never a consolidated Republican response to Trump.
On the other hand we're now in the general election, and lots of people in the middle are starting to pay attention. Trump exults in positive attention and was the proverbial pig in shit during the Republican convention. However, he seemed to have been surprised he was the subject of attack and mockery when the Democrats held theirs, and so when nearly everyone was paying attention, in the critical weeks after the conventions when primary passions are cooling and people are making up their minds, Trump attacked the mother of a fallen war hero - a mother who literally said nothing. All of that media groundwork defining Trump as a classless narcissist came to fruition.
Hillary has just shy of (or slightly more than) a double-digit lead in most national polls. Why would the Left-leaning media feel a great need for self-reflection? It seems they are getting everything they wanted. The idea that Trump is going to continue to gain "power from their opposition" does not appear to be supported by (recent) events.
The entire premise of that article is a howler of a joke of a lack of self-understanding among journalists. Or more likely, plain dishonesty serving to signal the virtue of journalists and journalistic integrity.
95% or more journalists see themselves not as reporters of facts, but as tellers of stories that reflect narratives that advance an agenda, and facts can take a hike.
This leftist agenda pushing has been the case since, oh, at least the last 50 years, and is the "norm" of political journalism today. Anyone denying it is lying. Anyone not admitting it is either purposefully blind, pig ignorant, or lying.
So what the article says is, "Gee, we journalists are all so wonderful, good and smart, and the work we do is so wonderful, good and righteous, and yet Trump, that evil subhuman, is so OTHER that we can't possibly even understand where to fit him into our progressive agenda pushing except as an example of OTHER requiring we demonize him."
What norms of objectivity in journalism? There are no such norms and haven't been for years, if not decades. There are very few journalists practicing in America. Most people who write for newspapers, magazines, etc. are propagandists.
Trump is Hillary's Reichstag Fire, and she has an army of Goebbels.
I am not Laszlo.
"Brian" wrote: "This is akin to the losers who are the core of Trump's fan base: They thrill at Trump's insults to those who have targeted them, the losers, with expressions of disrepect."
If these are the losers, please do label (i) the group that votes for handouts from government funded with loot derived from taxes gotten via or proceeds of bonds secured by threats of violence and (ii) the others in the party that "help" / prey on / offer such loot to them.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा