Amen. It’s cowardly that the majority of news outlets are not reporting Trump’s obviously debilitated mental state in an honest manner. Don’t the American people have a right to be presented with the facts about something of such importance in all its ugliness? It’s okay to trouble us with reporting on the horrors in Gaza, for example, or any number of disasters abroad, but we should be kept comfortably numb to the mental state of the president? Thank goodness for Substack.
Plain and simple, by design or cowardice, the once mighty NY Times has become a collaborationist tool of Trump. Their “sane-washing” started early and often and practically defines the term. I canceled my subscription months ago (along with the WaPo and others). I urge everyone to boycott all mainstream media until they remember what their role is in a democracy: watchdog not lapdog.
Agreed. Shit is shit. Call it that. Or crap. Or poop. But brown liquid? Really? You’re absolutely right. The sanewashing of the Felon-in-Chief is driving me crazy. In fact, given that he is a convicted felon, shouldn’t he simply be “Trump” on second references, not Mr. or President? As always, the NYFT pisses me off. And you know what the F stands for.
Mark, I really wonder if Trump is technically smart enough to create said video. I suspect he directs people to make such outlandish and sickening works.
It looks to me to be the work of Stephen Miller. He is a Jewish man who behaves more like a Nazi. He spreads hatred like a drop cloth over everything he sees.
The main problem is that the mainstream media don't want to go out on a limb and declare Trump to be mentally unfit;, they want a source to hang it on. As soon as a special counsel described President Biden as likely sympathetic to a jury because he was an elderly man with a poor memory, the NYT, WSJ and WAPO combined to run 81 stories in two weeks about Biden's mental state. But now they are too cowardly to run even one story stating the obvious about Trump.
The MSM's inability to cover Trump honestly and accurately calls into question their coverage of everything else. It looks more like public relations than journalism.
I don't know if it was you or someone else who pointed this out, but there was a mainstream news story recently in which Trump cited more than a 100 percent drop in prescription prices. The story said "experts say this is mathematically not possible" or something along those lines. They could have said "fourth-graders say" just as easily. We don't need an expert on this one.
I continue to be disturbed by his constant recitation of a 1,500 percent (or 800 percent or 1,200 percent, depending on the day) drop in prescription prices because a) I want a president who understands the most basic of mathematical concepts and b) obviously not one person in his administration has the courage to correct him. If they can't gently correct him on something so clear cut and simple, then they're clearly terrified to correct him on anything consequential. A nice Stalinist way to run a country. Would be helpful if everyday news sources would make this clear.
Totally infuriating that the Post and Times are doing nothing to call attention to Trump's obvious dementia. They didn't hold back on Biden. How can we shame them into doing their jobs? Remind them that our nuclear arsenal is in the hands of someone who has lost more than a few marbles?
Accurate reporting would include the fact that everyone who saw the video thought Trump was dumping feces on protesters (and anyone else in range of his poop-bomber). Calling it "a brown liquid" is insulting, like saying a big ball of fire appeared in the eastern sky this morning without mentioning the Sun's name.
How about a line that says, "Nearly everyone we spoke to described the substance as looking like liquified feces, and the White House has refused to comment." ? or "... and the White House says that people can't take a joke," or whatever absurd statement they put out, so that the facts are acknowledged all around instead of ignored?
News reporting has norms that involve selection and concision. There is a question whether this is even newsworthy. Then making a big deal over it starts to seem ridiculous. There are other people consuming the news besides those who are obsessed with Trump.
I'm sorry, but I think it's a VERY big deal that the President of the United States is trolling his own citizens in a bid to shut down protest and silence dissent. And that he's doing it in the most childish, crass, and foolish way possible. If that's not news that the entire world should know about, I'm an exploding galaxy. And I seriously question the wisdom of those who don't want to hear it.
Take it to the opinion page. Because the other side would say this is ridiculous, Trump's just trolling his opponents, no real attempt is being made to shut down protest, etc etc
While watching Sunday football with a neighbor, who happens to be a fire fighter and well-versed in politics. So, how to fight a fire hose of misinformation and lies from multiple leaders and media is not to depend on 1, 10 or even 50 messengers.
Have all candidates on state and local levels use their megaphones and relationships with local, state and regional media to speak out and act (accepting that messaging and tactics must be dramatically improved). Note:
435 incumbents and challengers for U.S. House races.
33 incumbents or challengers for U.S. Senate races (Class 2), plus any Senators not on the ballot.
36 Governors up for election (in states).
Thousands of state legislative seats up for election.
The massive reach of family and friends for spreading the word.
BTW: was there any count of the number of elected officials and candidates who attended rallies? Was there counts of those who failed to attend any rally?
Amen. It’s cowardly that the majority of news outlets are not reporting Trump’s obviously debilitated mental state in an honest manner. Don’t the American people have a right to be presented with the facts about something of such importance in all its ugliness? It’s okay to trouble us with reporting on the horrors in Gaza, for example, or any number of disasters abroad, but we should be kept comfortably numb to the mental state of the president? Thank goodness for Substack.
Plain and simple, by design or cowardice, the once mighty NY Times has become a collaborationist tool of Trump. Their “sane-washing” started early and often and practically defines the term. I canceled my subscription months ago (along with the WaPo and others). I urge everyone to boycott all mainstream media until they remember what their role is in a democracy: watchdog not lapdog.
Agreed. Shit is shit. Call it that. Or crap. Or poop. But brown liquid? Really? You’re absolutely right. The sanewashing of the Felon-in-Chief is driving me crazy. In fact, given that he is a convicted felon, shouldn’t he simply be “Trump” on second references, not Mr. or President? As always, the NYFT pisses me off. And you know what the F stands for.
You nailed it Mark. The coverage by the legacy press is ridiculous.
Mark, I really wonder if Trump is technically smart enough to create said video. I suspect he directs people to make such outlandish and sickening works.
It looks to me to be the work of Stephen Miller. He is a Jewish man who behaves more like a Nazi. He spreads hatred like a drop cloth over everything he sees.
I agree with you I think Miller did it. But Trump relished it. 47 loved it and was complicit with it.
I think it was a group effort, the felon definitely agreed to it, so we know he posted it, and was happy with it.
Absolutely agree. I've given up on legacy media.
It’s almost like billionaires shouldn’t own the media. At all, on any level
The main problem is that the mainstream media don't want to go out on a limb and declare Trump to be mentally unfit;, they want a source to hang it on. As soon as a special counsel described President Biden as likely sympathetic to a jury because he was an elderly man with a poor memory, the NYT, WSJ and WAPO combined to run 81 stories in two weeks about Biden's mental state. But now they are too cowardly to run even one story stating the obvious about Trump.
At least the Times editorial board came down hard today on Trump and ICE,
While WaPo campaigns for the godawful proposed ballroom . . .
The MSM's inability to cover Trump honestly and accurately calls into question their coverage of everything else. It looks more like public relations than journalism.
I don't know if it was you or someone else who pointed this out, but there was a mainstream news story recently in which Trump cited more than a 100 percent drop in prescription prices. The story said "experts say this is mathematically not possible" or something along those lines. They could have said "fourth-graders say" just as easily. We don't need an expert on this one.
I continue to be disturbed by his constant recitation of a 1,500 percent (or 800 percent or 1,200 percent, depending on the day) drop in prescription prices because a) I want a president who understands the most basic of mathematical concepts and b) obviously not one person in his administration has the courage to correct him. If they can't gently correct him on something so clear cut and simple, then they're clearly terrified to correct him on anything consequential. A nice Stalinist way to run a country. Would be helpful if everyday news sources would make this clear.
Totally infuriating that the Post and Times are doing nothing to call attention to Trump's obvious dementia. They didn't hold back on Biden. How can we shame them into doing their jobs? Remind them that our nuclear arsenal is in the hands of someone who has lost more than a few marbles?
The front page reports the news. The opinion page interprets the news. That's textbook journalism. Are we advocating for new textbooks?
Accurate reporting would include the fact that everyone who saw the video thought Trump was dumping feces on protesters (and anyone else in range of his poop-bomber). Calling it "a brown liquid" is insulting, like saying a big ball of fire appeared in the eastern sky this morning without mentioning the Sun's name.
Their hands are tied by the rules. Maybe the brown liquid's mud? Probably not, but reporting has to stay away from probably.
How about a line that says, "Nearly everyone we spoke to described the substance as looking like liquified feces, and the White House has refused to comment." ? or "... and the White House says that people can't take a joke," or whatever absurd statement they put out, so that the facts are acknowledged all around instead of ignored?
News reporting has norms that involve selection and concision. There is a question whether this is even newsworthy. Then making a big deal over it starts to seem ridiculous. There are other people consuming the news besides those who are obsessed with Trump.
I'm sorry, but I think it's a VERY big deal that the President of the United States is trolling his own citizens in a bid to shut down protest and silence dissent. And that he's doing it in the most childish, crass, and foolish way possible. If that's not news that the entire world should know about, I'm an exploding galaxy. And I seriously question the wisdom of those who don't want to hear it.
Take it to the opinion page. Because the other side would say this is ridiculous, Trump's just trolling his opponents, no real attempt is being made to shut down protest, etc etc
While watching Sunday football with a neighbor, who happens to be a fire fighter and well-versed in politics. So, how to fight a fire hose of misinformation and lies from multiple leaders and media is not to depend on 1, 10 or even 50 messengers.
Have all candidates on state and local levels use their megaphones and relationships with local, state and regional media to speak out and act (accepting that messaging and tactics must be dramatically improved). Note:
435 incumbents and challengers for U.S. House races.
33 incumbents or challengers for U.S. Senate races (Class 2), plus any Senators not on the ballot.
36 Governors up for election (in states).
Thousands of state legislative seats up for election.
The massive reach of family and friends for spreading the word.
BTW: was there any count of the number of elected officials and candidates who attended rallies? Was there counts of those who failed to attend any rally?