Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
See, I view it in kind of the opposite way. Many of Trump's statements are so obviously just cheerleading for himself and so vague that they can't really be taken seriously as any sort of real commentary on policy. Whereas a lot of bad lies were used to sell Obamacare and the war in Iraq, for example.
As we talked about last week, I am concerned by some of the things Gingrich said regarding the relationship between the president and the press and specifically access. Trump is nothing if not ham-handed, but let's not kid ourselves that Obama didn't groom friendly members of the media, which ultimately has the same result in "controlling" what is assumed to be a free press.
Look at this quote from the article you posted: "Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post said Spicer's assertion about 'what you guys should be writing' was 'chilling'." That's the epitome of the overwrought post-Trump hysteria we've been seeing from many on the left. What would be chilling is if all of you guys wrote about how chilling Trump's treatment of the press was and then you suddenly disappeared. But I have the feeling Tumulty and MANY others are going to be around for the next four years exercising their right to slam Trump at every turn.
And I find this just as troubling: "The CNN television network made a choice not to broadcast the Spicer statement live. Instead, the statement was monitored and then reported on after the fact."
So now we have a major network making the call that because of who the president is, a press conference isn't worthy of being covered live.
I disagree with the premise that some of Trump's statements can't be taken seriously. His politics and statements about politics became tremendously serious the minute he became the nominee, and even more so when he became president elect. So when an emasculated press secretary wants to dictate to the press what they should write because his boss, who is president, wants to distribute alternative facts, then yeah it's pretty serious. Everything he utters is to be taken seriously, and I'm not willing to grant a 70 year old man a steep learning curve when it comes to making distinctions between what not to say and what to say when you're president, or even a nominee. It's more than just the impression of being "presidential," it's also about being a fucking grown ass man who understands his responsibilities. Deliberate or not, his undisciplined style has already pissed off nation states. It's not hyperbole to suggest a foreign government may decide to take preemptive action within their own country or region to preserve their interests in light of threatening comments Trump may make against those interests.
I don't dispute that the WH and press try to curry favor with one another. That's a hallmark of our current media and it's not ideal. Greenwald has hammered this point home for years now. I think it's great if someone wants to call out the press for being biased, but you have to have credibility to be taken seriously, and when Trump disparages news outlets without cause, on top of blatantly lying, then his arguments lose all credibility. Again those goes back to the point many have made, including lyk, FF, and others: Trump invites a lot of this shit because he's a fucking liar. The two issues (lying and critical coverage) are inextricably linked. Is there more to it? Perhaps. But the shaping examples you cited (dark dreary day for Trump's inauguration, not so with Obama, etc), while clearly slanted and therefore condemnable, are not equivalent to the equivocations and blantant lies by the president of the country, and the disinformation that occurs as a result of those lies. Remember, this is a guy who campaigned as a populist, railing against bankers and special interests, and then appointed those same people after his hoodwinking was complete. He's a huckster - he forces you to be skeptical of everything he says due to the nature of his personality. That's going to have consequences in an open society.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
