Posted on 03/30/2019 11:22:24 AM PDT by OddLane
When the closing gavels came down on the 2016 political conventions, the news cycle did not ease into the usual midsummer lull but instead locked directly into a state of high alarm, with Donald J. Trump at its center. In the days following Trump’s nomination, there came reports of senior Republican officials considering ways to replace him on the ballot (ABC News), of “suicidal” despair inside the Trump campaign (CNBC), and of a growing list of Republican leaders who planned to publicly support Hillary Clinton (Time). Fox News reported that friends of Trump’s were planning to stage an intervention, involving his family, in hopes of saving his candidacy.
But amid those passing controversies was one story that Trump himself remembers clearly still. “Yep, very famous story,” he remarked to me in a recent interview. “It was a very important story...” Trump was referring to a front-page New York Times article published on August 8, 2016, under the headline "The Challenge Trump Poses to Objectivity." The opening paragraph posed a provocative question:
“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?”
(Excerpt) Read more at esquire.com ...
Absolute, complete lie.
Trump did not "bait" the media into abandoning neutrality. He exposed their longstanding agendas.
"nationalistic tendencies" -- what does this mean? Does he think America is special? Doe she think out nation state is somehow better than the global community as a whole? Does he support the flag? the Constitution? the Pledge of Allegiance? Supporting all of that would be bad, wouldn't????
"cozy up to anti-American dictators" -- what does this mean? Is Trump anti-America? Does he want to destroy our special way of life? Is he opposed to the flag? the Constitution? the Pledge of Allegiance? Opposing all of that would be bad, wouldn't????
Lol.
He drew them out in the open. There is no going back.
Everyone sees the fake legacy media for what they are...the propaganda arm of the democrat party.
Yes.
And their hatred is now even greater: Their assaults, their coup failed.
Hillary lost.
International Global Socialism lost - for a few years. America won.
(And I am not really sure which result the NY Times hates more.)
Gee, I remember their god/hero obummer doing that....
Exactly. The pre-Trump media was able to pose as neutral when the Republican opposition folded like a deck of cards any time the liberals shook a fist in their direction.
Thus, according to the media, NOBODY reasonable opposed the Obama's of the world. The liberals were cast as mainstream and the true conservatives were "right-wing". The media never has found anyone deserving the title "left-wing".
Saving his candidacy from WHAT?
The usual inversion of cause and effect, one of the left's favorite "reality warp" squid-ink-squirt tricks for when they get backed into a corner by the facts.
It's a lie, but at an abstract level, one or two times removed from concrete facts. It serves to confuse long enough for them to swim away.
It’s almost as if the effort to undo Trump has had an unexpected effect—that Trump has somehow broken the news media.
The New York Times has been like this for decades. Trump didn’t change them one iota.
You have to admit that they turned it up to eleven, though.
That’s true.
And I have to say, him allowing the Mueller investigation to run it’s course, outed so many people on both sides of the isle, and in the media as well.
It also outed certain high dollar and influence peddlers in the private sector.
Soros outed himself as willing to hire mobs. ANTIFA displayed the face of what the Leftists really want to do, but don’t want to be blamed for.
We now know many of the inside players who participated in the coup.
Trump is a wise man. He let them have as much rope as they needed to destroy themselves.
He gets far less credit than the deserves.
Does Esquire have as many paid subscribers as Newsweak and Time mag put together?
“The Rutenberg column was an astute and honest piece of analysis. The unavoidable takeaway from it was that Donald Trump, in shattering the norms of presidential politics, had baited the elite news media into abandoning the norms of traditional journalism—a central tenet of which was the posture of neutrality.”
That is a toral bit of fake news about the queen of fake news - Pravda on the Hudaon.
There was a research papar that was done on the mainstream print media comparing its front page product during the time of Bill Clinton versus the time of George W. Bush.
The key way insidious way the media attacks their political opponents or promotes those it supports is to make it personal to start with.
The researches took all the front page article headings and subheadings from the two periods. The used the general content to identify the “news” as tending to be either positive or negative. Then they looked out how the news was identified, as to wear fault or praise belonged. Then they looked to see if that was institutional or personal. Then they narrowed everything down to news emanating from actions or responsibilities of the federal government.
What they found was during the Clinton Presidency, if the news was “good” then Clinton by name was very often mentioned, or noted by initials, in the heading or subheading. But if the news was negative, then not Clinton but some responsible Federal agency was mentioned. Then during the GW Bush era, the two ways of front page reporing was reversed; with negative news earning the GW Bush identification and positive news attributed to the federal agency concerned.
Before that I had quite reading Pravda on the Hudson, having already detected that most of its national reporting was merely editorials slyly written to appear as “reporting”. Even with that they pretended “objectivity” by giving minor and far down on the page mention of some fact that often stood in dispute of the general line they had taken in how they “reported” the story. They know that majorities of readers never read the whole story.
As conspirators to overthrow the government, publishers can be indicted and jailed.
LEVIN’S EXCELLENT RANT ON HANNITY
While ALL Mark Levin’s rants are fact based and EXCELLENT, he outdid himself on Hannity on 3/29/2019.
The link immediately below is for Sean’s entire show. Levin begins at the 22 MINUTE MARK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POsOdBQzAFg&t=1811s
The part that really caught my attention began just before 29:50 in.
He correctly remarks that TED KENNEDY was dispatched to the USSR during Reagan’s first term to ask the Russians to assist the Dems in keeping Reagan from a second term. TALK ABOUT COLLUSION?
It’s why those of us who KNEW this story were especially INCENSED at the Trump/Russia BS from the FAKE NEWS 5th COLUMN!
Some of us have known this for several decades due to our contact with former KGB/Novasti Press defector, Yuri Bezmenov (aka Thomas Shuman). Yuri spoke to us here on 3/14/1985. I was asked to MC the program and had a chance to chat with him.
During that chat, Yuri told us that he had been assigned to accompany Ted Kennedy during his stay and described his task was to keep the notoriously promiscuous and besotted “Lion of the Senate” (more like LYIN’) “...in BROADS AND BOOZE”! He did!!
(In later appearances, he told that story in more public settings.)
I also audio recorded that March 14 appearance and, at the link below, Travis Moss has assembled the fragmented posts I uploaded back when YouTube’s limit was 10 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOW6ysVKOg8
Yuri gave us great insights into the workings of the then largely mysterious government of the USSR. You may find it as interesting today as we did then.
He did both. The Dems established a narrative that Trump was susceptible to baiting during the election. But what they ignored was that they were even more susceptible to baiting. After Trumps statement during the campaign that the Russians should release Hillary’s emails if they had them, the Dems went after the narrative that Trump was a Russian agent. Now they lost that fight but they can’t let go. They took the bait and destroyed themselves in the process.
But Trump really did say what the two journalists reported. Asked if he feared the prospect of recession, the president said that he was making deals with China and Europe “and I’m not being accommodated by the Fed,” a reference to the fact that the Fed continued to raise interest rates, rocking the stock market. “I’m not happy with the Fed. They’re making a mistake because I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me...So far, I’m not even a little bit happy with my selection of Jay [Powell, the Fed chairman]. Not even a little bit.”
A professional politician would not have answered so bluntly. On the subject of the Fed, for example, he might have said, “Some people have noticed that in the entire tenure of my predecessor, the Fed raised the rate twice, where this Fed has raised it seven times in my two years as president. Of course, that might be in response to our very strong economic growth.’’
On the other hand, there can be little doubt that, had the subject of the Fed come up over a Trump family dinner, he would not have answered the question any differently than he did for the Post. That points to one of the ironies of the enmity between this president and his press corps. For all of the distaste for Trump’s communications style, he is more accessible and his thinking more transparent than any other president in memory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.