Monday, July 3, 2017

Why the Media's Defense Against Trump Has Proven So Ineffective

The Atlantic ^ | July 3, 2017 | David A. Graham 

Donald Trump has a knack for choosing weak adversaries. He recognized the potential in taking advantage of undocumented workers. He used the element of surprise to take out Vince McMahon. Then he cut through a field of supposedly formidable Republicans as though they were Lilliputians, setting himself up for a general-election match-up against Hillary Clinton—who, it turned out, was a notably weak Democratic nominee.
Now it’s the press’s turn. While he’s bashed the news media since early in his campaign, the president has recently elevated his feud, with attacks on Mika Brzezinski and CNN that shocked even benumbed observers. Reporters are, understandably, horrified, but the general reaction from the press seems likely to encourage Trump while failing to rally the public against his behavior.
Trump’s attack on Brzezinski, including bizarre (and seemingly invented) claims about a botched facelift, is fully in keeping with the behavior of a man who boasted about committing sexual assault. His decision to post a video in which he attacks a man with the CNN logo superimposed over his face—an alteration of an old appearance with McMahon at a WWE event—can only be read as encouraging violence against the media; the best that can be said for it is that it might be, like professional wrestling, insincere, though what it would mean for someone to commit insincere physical violence against the press is anybody’s guess.
For reporters, it feels demoralizing to be attacked repeatedly by the president of the United States; some feel physically threatened. But the best way to respond to this is to make a stronger case to the American people as to why Trump’s attacks are unacceptable, rather than expecting it to be self-evident, or hoping that pity and sympathy will elicit public support. Rather than explaining why the president attacking the media is bad for the media, the media need to appeal to the public’s self-interest and explain why it’s bad for them.
Most Americans disapprove of the president—but most of them disapprove of the press as well. Just a third of Americans trust the media. Two-thirds believe the media are politically biased. Forty-five percent say the media “abuse” their First Amendment rights, versus just 35 who say they use those rights responsibly. Other presidents have faced implacably hostile press corps, but none of them have had the benefit of so unpopular a press. Trump is trying to press that advantage, and simply appealing to the public to take the side of the press on grounds of reasonability is unlikely to find much traction.
Besides, Trump has been assailing reporters for months: There were his repeated attempts at bullying NBC’s Katy Tur; his attack on Megyn Kelly, then of Fox News, for having “blood coming out of her wherever”; and more general bashing that was a staple of campaign rallies. This had little impact on his ability to win almost half of the votes in the November election. Even when Republican candidate for Congress Greg Gianforte physically assaulted Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs in May (don’t take my word for it: Gianforte pleaded guilty), he was easily elected. And reactions to Gianforte’s assault, instead of reflecting moral principles, quickly split along partisan lines, with Democrats outraged and many Republicans rationalizing the assault.
The press, and the nation, can ill-afford for condemning physical attacks on reporters to become a partisan issue, and yet so many responses to Trump have fallen into the trap of encouraging precisely such partisan reactions. Take the statement that CNN’s public-relations team put out over the weekend. “It is a sad day when the President of the United States encourages violence against reporters,” it began. Fair enough. Next: “Clearly, Sarah Huckabee Sanders lied when she said the President had never done so.” This is a little dodgier. Some precincts of the press are more nervous about calling White House officials liars than others, but it’s hard to see what purpose dragging in a silly claim by a deputy spokeswoman serves here. And then the coup de grace:
Instead of preparing for his overseas trip, his first meeting with Vladimir Putin, ‎dealing with North Korea and working on his health care bill, he is involved in juvenile behavior far below the dignity of his office. We will keep doing our jobs. He should start doing his.
Of course the video is juvenile; of course the president should be spending more time staffing his administration, learning what’s in the Senate health-care bill, and boning up on policy. But what purpose does this snark serve? It only encourages the view of Trump—and many of his supporters—that the media are out to get him and view him as the enemy.
The press tends to fare best when it doesn’t make itself the story, but that’s particularly imperative here. As Ishaan Tharoor writes, Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan offers a cautionary tale of what happens when a free press fails to defend itself effectively against an authoritarian leader. But it isn’t sufficient just to declare that the press is under attack. It’s not even enough to declare that the First Amendment is under attack, since even that has lost public support. In a Newseum poll, 74 percent of respondents did not think that “fake news” should be protected by freedom of the press—a grave misunderstanding of how a free press operates. Four in 10 Millennials support censorship of offensive speech.
Nor is the answer, as Ari Fleischer would have it, for the press to ease up on Trump. Like all spokespeople, Fleischer, a former White House press secretary, wants to convince reporters that they just need to pull their punches, when soft-pedaling will really only erode the press’s standing, and its ability to do its job.
In order to defend itself, the media will have to make the case that Trump’s attacks on the press are bad for the public. The problem with the president’s behavior isn’t that he’s mean to the press, since anyone who signed up for a journalism job in order to be chummy with elected officials chose the wrong career. The problem is that his attacks on the press threaten to undermine public confidence in its work, and its ability to gather and convey information on an independent basis. In a democracy, the press is the means by which ordinary citizens gain the information necessary to make informed decisions and to judge their elected representatives. The president has repeatedly and flagrantly attempted to mislead the American public; those deceptions are well-chronicled, because there is a free press to document them. There’s no way to temper free speech for the media without tempering free speech for the rest of the population.
It’s no use trying to make the public love the members of the press, much less pity them. What matters is convincing the public that the press is worth tolerating, because it’s an essential guarantor of the public’s own freedoms. The irony is that no one understands the utility of a freewheeling press quite like Donald Trump. Even as he railed against reporters at campaign rallies, the candidate knew full well that his ability to play to the papers and television had inflated his mediocre business career into a world-famous one, and his long-shot candidacy into a presidential victory. His attacks were doubly distasteful because they were were disingenuous. At some point, though, that changed. Trump’s view of the press shifted into outright fury—witness the stories of the president yelling at televisions reporting unflattering news about Russia and the firing of FBI Director James Comey.
Even now, when it suits his purposes, he recognizes the importance of the serious, mainstream press. When the House pulled the first version of its Obamacare replacement, Trump broke the news in phone calls to The Washington Post and New York Times. When the Comey story exploded, Trump chose to grant an interview to NBC News’s Lester Holt. The reason the administration has all but ended on-camera briefings at the White House is that its spokespeople can’t answer simple questions from the press without coming across as either ridiculous or dishonest; it’s easier simply to prevent the public from seeing that. Rather than acceding to Trump’s attempt to enlist them as his primary enemy, the media might enlist him as the unwitting pitchman for the indispensable role they play.

Trump Cuts White House Budget, Saves American Taxpayer $22 Million

Breitbart ^ | July 2, 2017 | by Warner Todd Huston 

President Donald Trump ran for office saying that the federal government spends too much. And now, with his own budget, he is leading the way by cutting spending in the White House and saving the American taxpayers a projected $22 million.
The savings come from a cut in the amount spent on Michelle Obama’s budget as First Lady, an end to the large number of “czars” and so-called “fellowships” that Obama employed, and a smaller White House workforce, Forbes magazine reported.
After the White House released its annual budget report last week, Adam Andrzejewski, president of government watchdog group, compared the newly reported budget to the last two years of the Obama administration.
Andrzejewski (pronounced And-gee-eff-ski) noted that there are now 110 fewer White House employees since Obama left office, saving nearly $5 million alone. Also, the First Lady’s staff has been cut from 24 staffers to only five. Michelle Obama entered the White House with a staff of 22 costing nearly $2 million annually, up from the $1.4 million spent during the George W. Bush era.
Another area of savings was the elimination of the so-called policy “czars” with which Obama stocked the White House staff. The Trump budget shows not a single “czar” employed for 2017.
Trump also seems to have ended Obama’s shady “fellowship” positions, people responsible for such special programs as Michelle Obama’s “Let Girls Learn” initiative and others. Some of these “fellowship” candidates in Obama’s administration made up to $158,000 annually.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Elizabeth Warren’s real Indian opponent sends her a DNA kit for her birthday. She’s not amused!

BPR ^ | 3 Jul 2017 | Samantha Chang 

You can’t make this stuff up.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren refused to take a DNA test mailed to her by Indian-American entrepreneur V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, who’s running against her for her U.S. Senate seat.
“I’m deeply saddened @SenWarren refused my thoughtful (gift-wrapped) Birthday Gift: the 23&me DNA Test Kit,” Ayyadurai tweeted Sunday. “Most unfortunate! #FakeIndian.”
Ayyadurai then posted hilarious screenshots of a DNA test kit he purchased online as a birthday gift for Warren, who turned 68 in June.
Boston-based businessman and inventor V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai is the real deal. Ayyadura, a Republican, received a Ph.D. and his undergraduate degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ayyadurai is running on the slogan: “Only a real Indian can defeat the fake Indian.”
Elizabeth Warren has been widely mocked for claiming she’s part-Cherokee Indian. “Pocahontas” Warren once cited her “high cheekbones” as proof of her bogus ethnicity.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

real indian V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai challenges fake indian senator elizabeth warren dna test pocahontas
Fake Indian! 

Democrats Seek To Declare Trump ‘Incapacitated’ And Remove Him From Office

Western Journalism ^ | July 1, 2017 | Tracy Mastaler 

Twenty-four House Democrats are now backing the bill.

A Democratic congressman has introduced legislation aimed at creating a congressional oversight commission that could declare President Donald Trump incapacitated, prompting his removal from office under the 25th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Twenty-four House Democrats support the bill, which was introduced by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D. Md., including the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. (the known criminal)

Former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.,has co-sponsored the bill.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump wins the media war, battle by battle

The Washington Times ^ | July 2, 2017 | Jennifer Harper 

There is a reason why the mainstream news media and the Democratic Party are in an uproar: They’ve been left out of the political equation by a player who understands the game better than they do. And that player is President Trump, who has conducted a masterful war against his media foes over the last 72 hours, launching a series of strategic tweets that deemed the hostile press not only “fake” but “fraudulent.”
The president himself declared that he was the victor to his 31 million Twitter followers, adding one more telling tweet that summarizes his very effective skill set: “My use of social media is not Presidential — it’s MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL,” Mr. Trump advised.
“Trump is Trump. He does what he does, which is what he did during the campaign and before. And now, in the White House, he has enlisted his media adversaries, wittingly or not, in a campaign against ‘fake news’ that resonates with his core supporters,” writes Byron York, a columnist for the Washington Examiner, who says that those who engage in “sloppy fights” with Mr. Trump often emerge diminished in the aftermath.
“President Trump knows how to communicate directly with his supporters by using Twitter and having campaign-style rallies. His supporters like this because they see President Trump fight the mainstream media,” writes J. Marsalo, a contributor to American Thinker, who adds that journalists fear Mr. Trump is making them irrelevant.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

UN Warns Trump – US Can Be Replaced, Cough Up The Cash (absolute BS)

Rick ^ | 6/22/2017 | Rick Wells 

Warnings to the United States are being issued by the globalist leech in charge at the UN, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. On Tuesday, the open borders communist operative cautioned President Trump that we could be replaced. We should be so fortunate and ought to, in fact, work to help guarantee that happens. There must be plenty of countries around the world ready to take on the “developing nations” as national dependents, though they may have to “sweeten the deal” with a little slave labor or territory, something that isn’t presently required.
Guterres told reporters at his first press conference since taking over the UN on January 1st, that the new funding levels proposed by the United States would be disastrous and create, “an unsolvable problem to the management of the U.N.” Can it be possible there is a problem that the globalists can’t solve? How obvious has it become that their “problem solving” is based solely upon the model of throwing American money at a problem? If the cash flow is restricted they can’t function.
Guterres, who was previously in charge of the UN’s global human trafficking operations as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, boasts of his willingness to engage in confrontations with the America-first President. He brags about his vocal opposition to America’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Welfare scam as if opposing what ultimately took place is in itself some sort of victory. It’s called losing, Antonio. Grasping at face-saving straws, he said the Democrats’ empty promises to act in place of the federal government are “a signal of hope that we very much encourage.” That “signal of hope” and ten bucks will get you a cup of water with free Wi-Fi at Starbucks, Guterres.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Supreme Court Case Could Have Huge Impact on Who Wins Future Elections

Rolling Stone ^ | June 23, 2017 | David S. Cohen 

What do you think is the most important issue in American politics today? Criminal justice reform? Health care? Global climate change? Immigration? Gay rights? Economic justice? ISIS? Creeping totalitarianism?
All of those things (and more!) are incredibly important, but they may all be secondary to something else: gerrymandering. And earlier this week, the Supreme Court announced that it was going to decide a case that could potentially reform the practice entirely.
For those not familiar with the term, gerrymandering is the process by which state legislators draw voting district boundaries, for both congressional and state legislature districts. That sounds pretty boring, but in essence the power to draw voting district boundaries is, in many situations, akin to the power to determine who wins elections.
This process usually happens every 10 years, and the party in control of the state legislature is, in most states, the one that's in charge. In theory, re-drawing boundaries happens in order to balance the districts with population changes. Every 10 years, the census data is released, so if a district has grown in size, then the boundaries need to change so that each district in the state has roughly the same number of voters.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...



The Spin






The 2ND Amendment






Correct Term


Socialised Medicine












Where's The News?


The Clintons