but reporters across the political spectrum demanding that Wolf apologize was anything but.
Indeed. Who would have thought that so many journalists still had common decency and character? :-)
The day that we stop seeing journalists highlight the collapse of “untruth” and “unfavorable to Trump”, the day that journalists stop sending up warning flares about the executive branch’s daily propaganda campaign against press freedom
Interesting point, that.
Does the Executive Branch oppose press freedom? Or is the Executive Branch simply pointing out that a media which is so biased towards one political party cannot fulfill the role of the Fourth Estate as envisioned by the Framers?
will be an enormous victory for a president whose fraught relationship with facts perpetually threatens our democracy.
There’s no question that the President has a problem with facts. There’s also no question that the media has become a poor arbiter for what is a fact and what is not. Why? Several reasons, the largest being the bias they themselves bring to the table.
So, yes, not having a free press does “threaten our democracy”. So does having a press where 90% of its members are looking for facts to support the preferred narrative, rather than vice versa.
Obviously, Trump’s autocratic tendencies must be checked, and many journalists have taken that exhausting responsibility seriously.
Overwrought. Trump talks like an authoritarian but governs far more libertarian. It is not “authoritarian” to deregulate the economy. It is not “authoritarian” to lower taxes. In fact, it’s just the opposite. (BTW, this tendency for GOP politicians to speak authoritarian and govern more libertarian is not restricted to Trump. Also, the Democrats do the opposite.)
But seeing journalists support the idea that a comedian needs to apologize for a roast, for comments about the woman who serves as a daily mouthpiece for those lies, is terrifying.
I don’t know if it’s “terrifying” (that seems a bit hyperbolic, in my view — after all, she’s only a comedianne) but more broadly, it raises the question as to why an event which is supposed to extol the beauties of “press freedom” would hire any speaker whose intent was to excoriate one side of the political spectrum and not the other. It runs counter to the expressed purpose of the WHCD.
The WHCD was never intended to be a public flogging of one side of the political spectrum by the other. The WHCD was intended to be an event where political differences were placed aside, along with a little good natured ribbing that pointed out the shortcomings of both.
There is no reason to show up for your own public flogging. At this point, the WHCD must change its format if it wants to be true to its own mission. If the hired help cannot roast both sides in a good natured fashion, then lose the “comedian” and hire a nonpolitical motivational speaker.
Further, it must be pointed out, whenever a discussion on political prevarication is engaged, that a rather obvious double standard exists. Was there ever a similar attack on Mr. Obama, on any of these issues?
- “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it”
- The claim that Fast and Furious started under the Bush Administration
- The claim that Republicans had filibustered 500 pieces of legislation that would have helped the middle class.
There are more, but let’s not digress; the point could not be clearer. The press, in its current state, has no issue with a President who lies about matters they agree with, OR they have no issue with a President lying if they like him personally. Take your pick. Such a President is given the benefit of the doubt, EVEN IF (going in order above) the lie is told to insure passage of a bill which restructures a sixth of the economy, the lie is told to deflect blame from an illegal and immoral program, or of the lie is told for electoral advantage.
In short, those are CONSEQUENTIAL lies.
That pressure does not come from Wolf. It comes from the Trump administration, which includes Sanders.
This sort of misses the point. To repeat from above, the WHCD was never intended to be the venue where journalists who dislike the Admin get to hit them while their arms are tied behind their backs. The WHCD was intended to be an event where political differences were placed aside, and the parties who engage daily in the Battles of Words could relax and socialize a bit.
Think that happened, this year? Did the two “sides”, even for a moment, put down their weapons and cheer Freedom of the Press?
He has fanned the flames of the incendiary fuel covering our country — a lack of critical thinking ability, combined with politically, and economically, disadvantageous circumstances that have been ongoing for decades.
Well on that we agree. And therein lies the underlying problem. With a President (actually, the last four presidents) who plays loose with the truth, and a media who promotes narratives (if not outright propaganda) rather than truth, the uninquisitive mind is has no recourse.
But, you never consider that the media is culpable, eh?