Questions about Trump’s alleged “I fired Comey the nut job” remark
Yesterday: another day, another leak of a wild and crazy remark alleged to have been made by Trump to the Russians:
I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”
The conversation, during a May 10 meeting ”” the day after he fired Mr. Comey ”” reinforces the notion that Mr. Trump dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives.
“American official” is a fairly general designation. Who on earth might this person be, and in what position?:
The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.
That carefully-worded sentence doesn’t tell us much. It’s a “White House document.” Written by whom? Circulated among what group as the official account? For example, was this document signed off on by Trump as an official memo for in-house consumption? Was it written or approved by someone who was at the meeting? As I read the paragraph above, I also note that the second official confirmed the “broad outlines” of the discussion but did not confirm the Trump quote.
The latest group of revelations seem to follow a certain pattern. The leaks are to the NY Times and/or the WaPo. They are from nameless “officials” and sometimes are corroborated by another “official.” So the first thing that comes to mind is: is the leaker mostly the same person, over and over, or a bunch of different people? The law of parsimony would dictate the former, but the anonymity of the person or people’s identities makes it impossible to know.
What is that person’s or those people’s motive or motives in putting this information out? We don’t really know that, either, not exactly, although we can safely say that Trump-approval is not the impetus. But that doesn’t stop people from speculating. And perhaps that’s part of the MSM’s plan for the destruction of President Trump: the more speculation, the merrier.
Is this official or are these officials some sort of holdovers from the previous administration, or members of the Trump administration itself? Signs would point to the latter in terms of the way the person is being portrayed by the media. If so, is he/she a turncoat who originally was a Trump loyalist? Or was he/she a mole from the start?
Since most or all of this is based on memos rather than transcripts or recordings, and those memos have been read to the reporters over the phone without being seen, how does that work? Is this unprecedented in terms of constituting the basis of a major news story by a supposedly reputable periodical? Do “officials” write these memos—supposedly containing direct quotes—from memory? Even if the person is trying to get it right (and we have no idea whether that’s the case here, or whether the person is lying through his/her teeth), when you’re dealing with a memo written after the fact, how can it be verified? Should anyone rely on memory for something as slippery as a quote? I certainly wouldn’t trust that process, even if things are being recalled in good faith, and of course we have no way to evaluate whether this memo was originally written in good faith.
Was the person reading the memo the same person who wrote the memo? How is the newspaper purporting to authenticate the memo without seeing it (for that matter, how would they authenticate such a thing even if they did see it?) Is it just that they implicitly trust their informant? And if so, why would they? With the publication of information from an anonymous informant, they are asking us to trust them, the media (and why should we?) and an unnamed informant to deliver the truth.
So, it it the truth? Did Trump say something of the sort to the Russians? Sean Spicer didn’t repudiate the quote, but he didn’t confirm it either. This is ambiguous, but it indicates there may be at least something true about it and that Trump may indeed have said something very much like it.
So let’s take the Trump quote in the memo at face value for a moment, as a basically correct account of what occurred. Why is it being leaked? To discredit Trump, of course, but in what way? To prove the reason that Trump fired Comey was to stop the Russia investigation? The quote doesn’t do that, except for those who already believe it. Was it to prove that Trump generally colludes with the Russians? It doesn’t do that, either. To prove he’s got a big mouth and says inappropriate things during a meeting with foreign leaders? Certainly.
And although that might indeed be the case, no one who has observed Trump for the nearly two years since his campaign began should be the least bit surprised at such a thing. It’s something I wrote about during campaign season, and feared was a good possibility if Trump ever became president. I was hardly alone in that; it was a commonplace thought.
Does this leak amount mostly to trying to get people to cringe because Trump says intemperate things, and to fear that he will say more of them? Well, du-uh. Didn’t the Trump voters pretty much factor that in? Perhaps they even considered this sort of talk to be a feature rather than a bug. Of course, if Congress wants to impeach and convict Trump for something, I suppose they can call anything a high crime and misdemeanor and vote to remove him. But at the moment, I have to say that nothing about this story surprises me in the least.
This is the Trump that has been on display for most of his life. This is the Trump we saw during the campaign. This is the Trump who came to the debates. It’s not the only aspect of Trump there is, of course, and since he became president we’ve seen less of it (and more of his more “presidential” side—mercifully, I’d say). But it’s not going to go away.
I also find it of interest that this Trump quote is pretty much all we have seen of the memo of this particular meeting with the Russians. We haven’t been told the full context, and although I doubt it would vindicate the remark of Trump’s, it would be nice to know. But what else happened during the rest of the meeting? Did Trump act in a way that would make him look good if we heard about it, and that’s why only the quote was released? Inquiring minds want to know.
[NOTE: Strangely enough, the incident reminds me most (although not in tone and style) of something Obama did in March of 2012, before the 2012 election:
Mr Medvedev, who steps down in May, said he would pass on Mr Obama’s message to his successor Vladimir Putin, according to an audio recording of comments the two leaders made during a meeting in Seoul, South Korea.
Mr Obama says: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.”
Mr Medvedev replies: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ”¦”
Mr Obama retorts: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
To my way of thinking, that’s far more pernicious than anything Trump is alleged to have said to the Russians about Comey and the firing. Obama’s remarks were about policy, and as I wrote:
The Obama statement to Medvedev tells you something important, which is that Obama knew that the things he was planning to do in a second term would be very unpopular with the American people. Therefore he was planning to keep the voters in the dark about some of his intentions until after his re-election. His election and re-election were founded on a conscious and deliberate deception (or series of deceptions) perpetrated upon the American people.
This may seem obvious. It was even obvious then. But I think it needs to be made absolutely explicit.
But isn’t it interesting that the same MSM so incensed about Trump didn’t seem very perturbed about Obama? Interesting, but not the least bit surprising.]
This may seem a bit of a side issue, but about that MSM…
This seems to be the only bullet in the arsenal now for Republicans, and especially Trump supporters: the constant, never-ending victimhood of conservatives at the hands of the all-powerful MSM.
Duly noted: the MSM (however you define that. Does that include Fox?) is biased against conservatives. This is not a bombshell. “They treated Obama better!” has been said 1,000,000 times. Again – this is absolutely no surprise.
What do conservatives plan to do about it? Seriously – what are the options here? Or will we still be whining about MSM bias in 10 years?
Here’s what conservatives have done (I was in support for the first decade or so): they lionized ratings-whores like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and those of the more Leni Riefenstahl ilk like Sean Hannity.
Created a network like Fox full of leggy blond conservative babes and – at least allegedly, a decent amount of sexual harassment (don’t every one freak out – I said “allegedly”).
Launched in the darker areas of the internet a bunch of white nationalist sites and disgusting pepe the frog alt-righters.
The only thing being done to combat the left’s monopoly on the larger news organizations seems to be crying about “fake news” and – what’s worse – confirmation biasing ourselves to death by only listening to “news” that we agree with.
The “conservative media” experiment hasn’t worked all that well, as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t know if Trump called Comey a “nutjob” but he has publicly called a ton of people a lot worse. Once you’ve crossed Trump he comes up with a nickname for you, because he has the mind of a fifth grader – “nutjob”, “looney”, “failed”, “lyin'”, etc. As you pointed out, neo, it sure sounds like him.
Imagine any President talking publicly about his enemies in this elementary school bully manner. Imagine your drunk uncle doing the same. Which fits better?
I don’t know who to believe any more. At this point I figure VP Pence is probably directing the leaks.
Neo:
I agree entirely with your comparison of Obama’s and Trump’s dealing with the Russians.
However it always ticked me off when Obama blamed things on Bush, and I don’t want to fall into the same pattern regarding Trump.
Yes, Trump’s alleged interaction with the Russians is not as bad as Obama’s overheard comments to Medvedev. But that doesn’t make Trump’s alleged comment smart or good. More valuable to Trump and his supporters is the pursuit of your first line of inquiry: is the NYTimes’ source trustworthy and did s/he report accurately? Those are the questions we really need to find answers to, and I have a gut feeling that we will eventually learn the Times’ report is inaccurate or their source is not reliable.
F:
Oh, I’m certainly not blaming Trump’s behavior on Obama. I brought up the Obama incident to spotlight the difference in the MSM treatment of each.
Andrew McCarthy today: Trump’s Berating of Comey for the Consumption of Our Enemies. He begins the piece with this paragraph:
And ends it with this:
Ann
I agree.
A real leader who isn’t besotted with vanity and malignant with vengeance would have a) fired Comey personally and quietly, preferably giving him the opportunity to resign with some dignity and b) moved on from there.
A more malign but still savvy leader would have slipped the knife in, still privately but without giving Comey the opportunity to resign, and would have moved on from there.
Trump decided Comey was his enemy, due to the Russian investigation (that’s clear, right? He certainly didn’t do it because Comey mistreated Hillary) and, in typical Trump fashion, decided to give his “enemy” ten times as much abuse has he had received (paraphrasing him from one of his books here) – so he fires him publicly but not in person, tweets threats to him, calls him childish names (“nutjob”, “showboat”).
It doesn’t seem to matter to Trump how much these actions hurt his (and his supporters’ and voters’) cause. Trump has to Trump. Because revenge.
Another quote from the article Ann posted
“The problem with this incident is not that it makes more likely the possibility that Trump colluded with Russia. The problem is that it suggests that Trump isn’t distinguishing friend from foe, Americans from America’s enemies. I don’t care about the “Russia collusion” narrative. I’m talking about a president who must know there is a more destructive narrative about his fitness, for which he cannot seem to stop providing ammunition.”
This has long been my concern regarding Trump’s temperament. As far as a President is concerned, “friend” and “foe” should have to do with who’s good for and who’s not good for America. But Trump is too conditioned, through long years of malice and avarice, to judge “friend” and “foe” by who’s better or worse for Trump. Hence Comey finds himself on the “foe” in the presence of Russians, who are not exactly our “friends” on the world stage.
I am coming to love the new standard for sourcing: “A document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official.”
So the leak has a piece of paper and he calls up some tool at the times and says “Here let me read you this piece of paper.”
Aha! A piece of paper! Must be true.
Spicer couldn’t deny it because he wasn’t in the room? Lavrov has denied it was even a topic of conversation, and he was in the room.
I think the story was an outright lie. No you can’t authenticate the document if you see it, but in this day and age, it is easier to take a damned photograph than it is to read it to a reporter. If I am a reporter, I ask for a photograph, and I don’t take no as an answer either.
Was this the same meeting where he supposedly in an “unprecedented” manner (according to the news media) revealed a bomb plot by ISIS?
So the reason this is a scandal is because he called Comey a nutjob or because he told a Russian he thought Comey was a nutjob?
Sounds like small talk to me. Like this conversation by Obama in 2011:
President Barack Obama and his then-French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, came under fire in November 2011 after they were overheard talking about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the G20 summit.
Sarkozy told Obama: “I can’t stand him. He’s a liar,” according to French website Arret sur Images.
Obama is reported to have replied: “You’re tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day.”
Except that President Trump didn’t mention anything about the FBI at that meeting.
Russian FM Lavrov said the democrat fairy tail about Russian meddling in the 2016 election was never discussed. From CBS news of all places.
So we can believe an unnamed fictional source or a live human being who was actually present at the meeting.
The MSM needs to come clean about its uncritical acceptance of anything that supposedly happens at the White House. It pumps up circulation from low-information voters – those who vote left. But it damages the low level of credibility that the media is rumored to enjoy.
Again, the really interesting questions are who is doing the leaking, and why. Now, if we knew that, then we would have a great story. So why won’t the media tell us?
As for the alleged contents of yet another memo from yet another anonymous source, a high degree of skepticism is in order. The phrase “nut job Comey” is something that Mr. Trump might say (and with some justification). But we don’t know if he said that.
But the reality is that people who actually take notes for such diplomatic meetings don’t write down things like that. It just doesn’t happen that way.
Another opinion, here:
“Sadly, short of revoking some of the media’s broadcasting licenses and smothering them in civil action, I cannot think of any way the president could effectively resist what amounts to a media-induced coup attempt.”
http://amgreatness.com/2017/05/20/partisans-nonpartisan-clothing-media-trump/
And Scott Adams is calling it a “slow motion assassination,” here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160770453201/the-slow-motion-assassination-of-president-trump
Bill Says:
May 20th, 2017 at 3:32 pm
This may seem a bit of a side issue, but about that MSM…
This seems to be the only bullet in the arsenal now for Republicans, and especially Trump supporters: the constant, never-ending victimhood of conservatives at the hands of the all-powerful MSM.
Duly noted: the MSM (however you define that. Does that include Fox?)
* * *
With the recent departure of most of the conservatives, and the final departure of the founder, I would say: it does now.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/nut-job-iii-drain-your-own-damn-swamp.php
by Paul
“In the case of the “nut job” leak, someone in the administration reportedly read quotations from the confidential memo that memorialized what was said during the meeting.
I don’t see how an administration can function effectively in the face of this kind of leaking about what the president says and does in private or highly confidential settings.
It has been said that, in contrast to the mainstream media, Trump’s supporters took their man seriously, but not literally. It’s difficult, though, to take seriously a president who can’t stop leaks about how he reacts to what he sees on television or what he says in private meetings with the Russians.
It’s even more difficult when that president rode into the White House in part on a reputation for toughness and the ability to exercise control over subordinates. He was going to “drain the swamp.” Instead, he seems, inadvertently, to be cultivating one inside the White House.”
Then follows a great analysis of the substance of the leak. However, Paul should be reading his co-bloggers.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/nut-job-ii.php
by John
“The latest anonymous leak/news story, the New York Times’s “nut job” scoop, represents a return to the crude and vulgar Donald Trump with whom we became familiar during the campaign. That is, assuming that the anonymously sourced report on a memo by an unidentified author is true.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/i-nut-job.php
by Scott
“There is not much more to add to Andy’s comments, though at a later date Victor Davis Hanson may have something to say about nemesis. In the meantime, we may have to pray for deus ex machina.”
Brian E Says:
May 20th, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Was this the same meeting where he supposedly in an “unprecedented” manner (according to the news media) revealed a bomb plot by ISIS?
So the reason this is a scandal is because he called Comey a nutjob or because he told a Russian he thought Comey was a nutjob?
Sounds like small talk to me. Like this conversation by Obama in 2011:
* * *
Neo’s right though, we can’t defend one of Trump’s inanities (assuming any of the leaked reports are, you know, true) by dropping one of Obama’s on top of it, like kids playing cards.
But it is beyond irritating that the self-anointed Media Monarchs treat them totally differently.
It’s enough to make you want to secede from the 57 United States.
I was double-checking the number, and found this.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp
“Talking with reporters at a later campaign stop, Senator Obama expressed concern that he’d recently misstated both the number of potential victims of a recent cyclone in Burma and the number of states he’d visited, saying: “I hope I said 100 thousand people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh …”
Quickly enough, based on the (spurious) rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim, someone came up with the fanciful idea that his mention of “fifty-seven states” was a reference to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has 57 member states. (Actually, the OIC encompasses 60 countries altogether: 57 member states and 3 observer states.)
The actual intent behind Senator Obama’s misstatement is easy to discern without the need to invoke an obscure international organization. He was trying to express the thought that in all the time he had spent on the campaign trail so far in 2007-08, he had visited all (48) of the states in the continental U.S. save for one (i.e., “one left to go,” excluding Alaska and Hawaii), but in his weariness he slipped up and started off with “fifty” instead of “forty.” (Note the long pause in the video clip between the words “fifty” and “seven.”)”
Please note that it wasn’t enough for Snopes to just admit, “yeah, he said it.” They go on and on about the poor dear’s exhaustion and then drag in a email meme(the fonts of faux news) that claims he meant “57 Islamic States” — just one more example of the bias even in the fact-checker biz.
Oh, and can we have the transcript, Candy?
The Russians have already totally refuted this meme.
Comey was not even a subject discussed, whatsoever.
Just for the record:
http://humanevents.com/2011/07/10/top-10-obama-gaffes/
.. Does anyone here remember Ed Morrissey’s running feature at Hot Air in 2009 “Obamateurism of the Day” – he had to pick the best from several each day and quit after the first term because it was such a mind-numbing exercise.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/06/obamateurism-of-the-day-863/
BTW, Slate, among others is crying “hypocrisy” because (gasp!) Trump bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, and conservatives objected when Obama did it, so there you meanies!
They neglect to mention (which is clear in the videos of both events) that Trump lowered his head so the King could put the chain of a medal over it, whereas Obama had no such excuse.
vanderleun Says:
May 20th, 2017 at 5:54 pm
Aha! A piece of paper! Must be true.
* * *
Dan Rather had a piece of paper too.
In his hands.
Still wasn’t true.
FWIW, I am currently agnostic on all the reports coming out of the Russian-Trump meeting.
I want something more than “he said he heard he saw” gossip.
@Bill
“Launched in the darker areas of the internet a bunch of white nationalist sites and disgusting pepe the frog alt-righters.”
Aw, come on Bill. The guys at The_Donald, etc. are a trip. It’s nice to see such spirit and imagination. The whole Kek business to them is both amusing and serious. Made me actually have some faith in the younger generation. And they definitely have nothing to do with white nationalist sites.
I do agree, however, that the conservatives have dropped the ball in media, but then they’ve also dropped the ball in education, culture and most forms of soft power.
It might be truer to say that conservatives didn’t even know there was a game going on though….
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/05/20/in-seattle-police-can-no-longer-report-suspects-they-have-to-say-community-members-n2329542
I wish this was a joke, but it’s not. In Seattle, police can no longer use the term “suspect” for use of force reports. Instead, they have to write “community member.” Alas, we have political correctness now infesting law enforcement. Also, this isn’t new. KIRO 7 reported that the Washington’s Department of Corrections no longer calls prisoners inmates; they call them students (via KIRO 7):
…
So, if you shoot people, you’re a community member on the run. If you’ve been tried, convicted of a crime, and sent to jail, you’re a student.
* * *
And they wonder why Trump won.
Maybe Trump’s a nut job and maybe Comey’s one too, and maybe not, but these people certainly are.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266714/anonymous-sources-washington-post-and-cnn-fake-daniel-greenfield
THE ANONYMOUS SOURCES OF WASHINGTON POST AND CNN FAKE NEWS
How fake news gets made.
May 18, 2017 Daniel Greenfield
Media fake news is everywhere.
No, the new health care bill does not treat rape as a pre-existing condition and Republicans did not celebrate its passage with beer.
The latest media outrage is driven by a Washington Post story about intelligence disclosures based on claims by anonymous sources. The Post’s big hit pieces are mainly based on anonymous sources.
Its latest hit piece runs a quote from, “a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials.” That’s an anonymous source quoting hearsay from other anonymous sources.
This isn’t journalism. It’s a joke.
Last week, the Washington Post unveiled a story based on “the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House.” The fake news story falsely claimed that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to resign.
Rod had a simple answer when asked about that piece of fake news. “No.”
So much for 30 anonymous sources and for the Washington Post’s credibility. But the media keeps shoveling out pieces based on anonymous sources and confirmed by anonymous sources while ignoring the disavowals by those public officials who are willing to go on the record.
…The media’s fake news infrastructure relies heavily on anonymous sources. And anonymous sources are the media’s way of saying, “Just trust us.”
The question is why would anyone trust the media?
…
Sources “familiar with the discussion” is up there with “a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials.” And their neighbor’s dog who barks exclusively to CNN.
…
CNN did not acknowledge that the fake reports had come from it. It phrased it in passive and vague language. And it left out a crucial part of McCabe’s response. …
CNN didn’t just push fake news. It covered up its crime. And it’s the cover-up that proves the crime.
Media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post often knows that they’re pushing lies. WaPo’s fact checkers shot down the claim that rape is a pre-existing condition. But the paper ran a piece titled, “I Was Raped. Thanks to Republicans, I Could Be Denied Insurance.” The editors know quite well which of these pieces will have more of an impact.
…
The Washington Post isn’t in the news business. After its takeover by Amazon boss Jeff Bezos, it’s in the business of manufacturing viral Trump hit pieces. It got a viral fake news hit with its lie that Press Secretary Sean Spicer was hiding in the bushes to avoid them. There was an equally snarky correction issued that was largely irrelevant. Having manufactured a piece of fake news fit for a Saturday Night Live skit, the Post then dutifully reported on the Saturday Night Live skit featuring its fake news item.
In the past there would have been a world of difference between the Washington Post and Saturday Night Live. Today they are part of the same lefty echo chamber.
The truly damning epitaph of American journalism is that there isn’t much of a difference. Saturday Night Live isn’t doing comedy and the Washington Post isn’t doing journalism. They’re both manufacturing viral Trump attacks.
…
CNN’s fake news is constantly being shot down by the facts. But it just doubles down on its lies.
…
And even when corrections appear, they exist only for the purpose of plausible deniability. The original fake news gets rolled into multiple news stories, blog posts and editorials that never get updated or corrected.
And even if they were to be, the damage would be done. That’s the way fake news works.
…
But it’s the media that is reckless and corrosive to democracy. It has eroded its credibility with fake news. Factually accurate reporting has become too difficult and unrewarding. The idea of waiting months or years for an investigation to pay off is alien to the nanosecond news cycle. That’s why every fake Trump scandal is the new Watergate. And fake news is constantly being manufactured.
News organizations are throwing away their credibility to reverse the results of a democratic election. And it’s not only their own credibility that they are throwing away. The marketplace of ideas was based on reason and objectivity. Without them, there was no longer a public square we could all live in.
Media bias began to corrupt the marketplace. But bias meant the selective reporting of facts. Falsehoods could creep in. But generally the media would not just casually run stories that were completely false. It would happen from time to time. But it wouldn’t be a constant practice.
And then a tipping point was reached.
… We no longer have a free press. All we have is a fake press.
In case you haven’t seen this one.
https://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2017/05/19/150541
“A real leader who isn’t besotted with vanity and malignant with vengeance”
Sounds a lot like your God-King Obama, lol.
One observation: Even if Trump did say what was reported, it doesn’t mean anything because he had already fired Comey and Comey was gone. There is no advantage to the Russians to know that Trump thinks someone Trump had fired is nuts. Maybe the president was trying to ingratiate himself, or spread disinformation, or vent his frustrations–it doesn’t make any difference because Comey was already gone. The real damage to America is from the leaking of the conversation, which has given the president’s domestic enemies a quote with which to play incendiary games.
I remember some fake news from the past
Mike Jericho was never “an Australian Special Forces veteran of East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/10/008040.php
It is irresponsible to publish as fact incomplete and out of context remarks that haven’t been seen directly and which are from unnamed, anonymous sources.
Who is to say there is any source at all?
Isn’t the idea of “leakers” so ingrained in our heads at this point that the media can just now attribute anything they make up out of thin air to “anonymous officials” and have it gain traction? As long as all the national outlets collude and run with the same story at once, can’t the media just make up whatever they want at this point?
I learned from Obama, praise be upon him, to pay more attention to what he did, and less attention to what he said.
I see no reason to change my thinking now.
“This seems to be the only bullet in the arsenal now for Republicans, and especially Trump supporters: the constant, never-ending victimhood of conservatives at the hands of the all-powerful MSM.” – Bill
There are some in “conservative” media that are paying attention to this issue, for both sides…
.
“The American people need to do a better job as well of critically consuming their news and not crying victim when something is reported unfairly. Your knee-jerk reaction should not be to run to the conservative or liberal silo that says everything you want to hear and encasing yourself in your own bubble.
…
The American people still should be skeptical of anything they read — running to your safe place of news delivery isn’t always in your best interest; critical consumption is..”
– Salena Zito – Washington Examiner – “Crisis in American Journalism Benefits No One”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-crisis-in-american-journalism-benefits-no-one/article/2623603
It is also a way of siloing the conversation, providing a convenient excuse never to engage the “other”.
.
A while ago Neo mentioned Jim Jones.
One thing he did very effectively was silo his cult members, isolating them from friends and family, peppering them with talk about how evil those “others” were. All “news” was filtered through him.
Hmmm. Makes one wonder.
Maybe the “conservatives” ought to try that with some on the left.
/sarc
America has always had a propaganda press, a fake press. When will they wake up instead of just jumping on the Band Wagon and swallowing Jim Jones’ kool aide.
Sounds a lot like your God-King Obama, lol.
The Left has their god king hussein messiah and the alt right has the god emperor hero savior king trum.
Both learned it from Alinsky, and thus Lucifer is in charge.
Republicans played the DC game rather poorly, and they weren’t the Left or the Demoncrats. But the Alt Right is far closer to the methods of the Leftist alliance, and that is by intent not coincidence.
Soddom Gomorrah times. Look to the sky.
Supposedly Trum was a safe choice because Republicans could depend on the media to check Trum’s authoritarian impulses. Given that the media is an authoritarian impulse in concrete, good job falling for another con, humans.