◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲ ▼Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Newly elected presidents are frequently afforded what is described as a “honeymoon period” in which the criticism of their campaign positions diminishes sharply as the public and media stand by to see what actually will develop as an administration takes shape. The honeymoon can sometimes extend well into the post-inauguration time frame, as it did with President Barack Obama, and it provides for a breathing space during which the new arrivals in the White House can set an agenda and learn how the government actually works.
Unfortunately, President-elect Donald Trump will apparently not enjoy such a courtesy, at least as far as the media is concerned. The mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile to Trump both during the Republican primaries and the presidential campaign itself. The assertions emanating from media apologists contending that Trump actually benefitted from the massive press coverage that he did receive ignores the fact that the reporting was almost always negative. If Trump benefited at all it was only because the public, seeing the outpouring of sheer hatred from a media that it already distrusted, came to believe that someone so vilified by a source so questionable must actually represent something worth supporting.
The rage of the media towards Trump continues unabated. The Washington Post, a scurrilous rag emanating out of the District of Columbia that claims to be a national “newspaper of record,” has a neocon editorial page that has never seen a war that it dislikes coupled with domestic and local reporting that is multicultural, inclusive and diverse to a fault. Its globalist agenda driven hacks seamlessly churn out news stories that are more editorials for a certain world view than they are reporting of actual events. It is “invade the world-invite the world” at its finest and reminds one of Hillary Clinton at her most effusive.
The Post’s November 16th print edition was remarkable even by the paper’s lax journalistic standards, suggesting that it would be well served by renaming itself The Anti-Trump. Here are the stories featured in the paper on that day either about Trump himself, his transition team, or about policies that Trump is believed to be promoting:
- Lead headline, “Key figures purged from Trump team.”
- Lead Editorial” “Mr. Putin’s green light for atrocities: Mr. Obama will not act in Syria to stop Russia or the Assad regime, and Mr. Trump seems indifferent at best”
- Second Editorial” “Show us your papers Mr. Trump”
- Article “How Bannon coaxed Trump in alt-right shift”
- Article “A rallying cry for Democrats: Resist”
- Article “Police chief: Los Angeles won’t aid Trump deportation efforts”
- Article “Think tank highlights Russian threat”
- Article “Anti-Defamation League decries Bannon’s ascent”
- Article “Parents of transgender children speak out in an effort to empower others”
- Article “Elite schools urged to aid undocumented students”
- Article “In rejecting the blind trust tradition, Trump follows another model: Ukraine”
- Article “In Middle east, a new uncertainty after Obama”
- Article “Europeans urge Trump to be cautious on Putin”
- Article “Obama warns of ‘crude sort of nationalism’”
- Article “Why Mexico has a lot to lose in a Trump trade war”
- Article “Trump’s election does not bode well for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”
- Article “The faulty logic behind Trump’s plan to freeze federal hiring”
- Article “Ginsburg utters: ‘President Trump’: Justice who had voiced distaste for Republican bites her tongue”
- Article “Election outcome protested in District”
- Opinion “For my dad and uncle, Trump is no step forward: the election of Obama gave them hope. Now they have Trump”
- Article “’Sanctuaries’ stand firm amid threat”
- Article “Council floats plan to cut back on Trump’s parade”
- Op-ed “America’s Bannon litmus test”
- Op-ed “Trump must disavow the alt-right”
- Op-ed “With Russia, deterrence before détente”
- Op-ed “The Fed clash to come?”
- Letter to editor: In an attack on those who voted for Trump, “When you knowingly put a racist person with seemingly fascist tendencies in the White House, it can give the impression that you sympathize.”
- Letter to editor: “…with the selection of Mr. Ebell [a critic of climate change as EPA transition team head] that promise [to drain the Washington swamp] appears to have been a lie. Rather than draining the swamp, the president-elect is already swimming in it.”
- Metro section review of the Capitol dome restoration: “Revived symbol for worried nation”
- Style section “Questions of faith: She had always believed hers was a country that, ultimately, chose good. What now?”
- Style section “Never say #Never? These conservatives said they couldn’t tolerate Trump. Then he won”
- Style section “Sykes says she got the last laugh on hecklers [a comedian who was booed in Boston when she made a series of jokes about Trump]”
This constitutes just one day’s coverage in only one paper of the World of Trump. I am pleased to report that there were no negative stories about Donald in either the Sports or Food sections, though I might have missed them, and I later noted that there were a couple of more negative pieces in the online version of the paper. The New York Times online on the same day was not so vitriolic, and a bit more restrained in its language, but it had seven featured articles, one editorial and four op-eds all critical of Trump, his policies, or his transition process. One op-ed was entitled “Bullying in the age of Trump.”
My point here is that, yes, I get it, Trump and his doings are currently hot items for the media, but this goes well beyond “reporting the news.” It is more like creating the story. There has been an avalanche of articles, commentary and assorted quasi-reportorial innuendo all depicting Trump, those around him and his prospective policies in as critical a fashion as possible. It appears that no end is in sight and even the most skeptical reader will eventually be somewhat persuaded by the sheer volume of negativity regarding Trump as much of it will be in his or her face as they sip their morning coffee. If one adds in similar coverage deriving from television sources like CNN and MSNBC as well as agitprop demonstrations in the streets allegedly being funded by George Soros, the conclusion that Donald Trump will begin his presidency with a huge credibility deficit is inescapable.
Many of us have longed for a president who will actually shake up the smug oligarchy that runs the New York-Washington bankster-crooked politician axis. Trump may or may not be that man but he at least deserves a chance to prove himself, particularly if he is genuinely interested in détente with Russia and is unwilling to play the role of the world’s policeman. No matter what the oligarchs think, the genie is truly out of the bottle. Few among the flyover public and the “deplorables” any longer trust what goes on in Washington and that sentiment is, if anything, growing. Even if the media and the Establishment succeed in destroying Trump, and they are on course to do so, there will be another Trump in 2020. And he or she would be even angrier and might be able to tap into an increased level of popular rage that could make the current president-elect and his merry band seem the soul of moderation. It is not necessarily something to hope for.