The New York Times' downward spiral: In today's featured editorial, the Washington Post discusses Donald J. Trump's foreign policy speech. Their headline was less than flattering:
"Trump’s incoherent, inconsistent, incomprehensible foreign policy"
At one point, the editors did something strange. They rejected an important fact which Donald J. Trump has invented:
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL (4/29/16): Mr. Trump blamed previous administrations for making a mess of the Middle East—a reasonable claim, but one he littered with false assertions. He again claimed, against the known record, to have opposed the Iraq War well before it began. He said, falsely, that the Islamic State was exporting oil from Libya. Then there were the flagrant lies that “there are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism” and that “for every case known to the public, there are dozens and dozens more.”To their credit, the editors explicitly rejected the phony fact which Donald J. Trump has invented. Yesterday, the constantly ludicrous New York Times took a different approach.
Yesterday, the New York Times vouched for Trump's invented fact. It did so in paragraph 2 of a news report which topped the paper's front page. For the ugly details, click here.
How pathetic is the Times? Routinely, they amaze. Even more amazing is the way the liberal world accepts these constant behaviors, including the recitation of phony facts which may turn a White House campaign.
Last night, none of our corporate liberal stars challenged the way the New York Times pimped that invented fact. Instead, they served us our nightly tribal porridge on Our Own Liberal Channel.
Push back at the New York Times? It simply isn't done! Dearest darlings, use your heads! Careers and social standing very much hang in the balance!
The claim that Donald J. Trump opposed Iraq could help him reach the White House. Despite that fact, our heroes will do as they've always done. Meekly, they'll hang back from fighting invented facts. They'll keep serving us the tribal gruel which feels so good going down.
Concerning the Times, the Times is routinely amazing. Has any newspaper ever assembled such a gang of reliable flyweights to cover a nation's events?
We thought of the failure of the Times when we read David Brooks' column this morning. Brooks was savaging Candidate Trump. This is the way he began:
BROOKS (4/29/16): Donald Trump now looks set to be the Republican presidential nominee. So for those of us appalled by this prospect—what are we supposed to do?Brooks assumes that Trump will be slaughtered. We don't think that's clear.
Well, not what the leaders of the Republican Party are doing. They’re going down meekly and hoping for a quiet convention. They seem blithely unaware that this is a Joe McCarthy moment. People will be judged by where they stood at this time. Those who walked with Trump will be tainted forever after for the degradation of standards and the general election slaughter.
Other than that, it's plainly true! In many ways, Candidate Trump has been and is involved in a "degradation of standards."
That said, this ongoing degradation began long ago. It began long before Donald J. Trump entered this White House campaign.
Many folk other than Donald J. Trump have been involved in this downward spiral. Routinely, this degradation of standards has been conducted at Brooks' own glorious newspaper.
The degradation of standards was visible on the front page of yesterday's Times. It was also pushed in your face all through last night's Maddow Show.
Donald J. Trump didn't start this spiral. Many "journalists" have been, and currently are, involved in this dangerous fail.