Thursday, November 26, 2015

If the Media Really Cares About Bigotry Talk Less About Trump and More About Itself

Going after Trump is easy. Which probably explains why so many pundits are talking tough about his 'fascism.' As for fascism. Josh Marshall makes some great points.

Like  Josh has suggested, much of the media anti Trump campaign is pretty arrogant.

"Our assessment of Mr. Trump was correct, but the tactical response was not. His popular support has hung steady at about 30 percent of Republicans, and his candidacy has tugged the debate toward divisiveness as his bigotry has drawn cheers and many of his rivals have strove to mimic him."
Ie, they are upset because of how well he's doing in the polls. What business is this of theirs? It's up to the GOP primary voters who they want.

To me this is just going after low hanging fruit and trying to kid themselves that Trump is the whole problem-that the party is fine, just get rid of him. But for years, the media has played this evenhanded game that got us here.

What I'd be more impressed with would be if the media called out CNN's normalizing bigotry by suspending one of their journalists because she expressed sympathy for the refugees after 47 pitiful Democrats voted with the GOP to ban Syrian refugees.

It's easy to castigate Trump-in the hope this helps the GOP establishment elect a candidate with a better chance of beating Hillary Clinton-which is what this whole pious poise is really about.

But meanwhile CNN has declared any criticism of actual anti Muslim policies as deviant. This has been my whole criticism of the obsession only with Trump from the start. He's a showman about this stuff and the media takes issue with that but not the underlying policies.

I don't remember the media having a problem when John Kasich ran for Governor in 2010 on deporting 11 million immigrants.

While CNN suspended Ms. Labott for sympathy for the refugees, they had no problem earlier that day when she called the President 'defensive' because he wasn't bellicose enough for CNN's liking.

So for media pundits-at the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN, etc.-'Physician, heal thyself.'


  1. Mike, maybe this focus on Trump by the media is a good thing:

    1. It might help him with GOP voters, helping ensure he's the nominee. GOP voters gave up on the NY Times decades ago. Probably "Hannity" is as close as they get to a mainstream journalist now... or if they're feeling like a "left wing" view, maybe they'll watch O'Reilly. Either case, Trump can use NY Times criticism to his benefit.

    2. This media focus on Trump means that EVERYONE ELSE will probably get a very negative impression of Trump... if he DOES become the nominee.

    Sounds like a win win.

  2. I don't know. I don't feel the need for more insurance for the general. I worry much more about a President Rubio than a President Trump.

    Now the media is imagining that the attacks on Trump will eventually hurt him with the base but I agree with you it may well have the opposite effect-I'd expect that.

    Still they are trying to do this and as long as they are trying to make the world safe for a President Rubio they are my enemy.