MONDAY: Baker's piece was "unusually blunt!"

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2025

Or then again, maybe it wasn't: Could something be "wrong" with President Trump? Here's the reason we ask:

Late last night, with midnight approaching, the commander was at it again, posting the furious message shown below at his Truth Social site. He was reacting to the news that Joy Reid's weeknight program will be replaced at MSNBC: 

PRESIDENT TRUMP (2/23/25): Lowlife Chairman of “Concast,” Brian Roberts, the owner of Ratings Challenged NBC and MSDNC, has finally gotten the nerve up to fire one of the least talented people in television, the mentally obnoxious racist, Joy Reid. Based on her ratings, which were virtually non-existent, she should have been “canned” long ago, along with everyone else who works there. Also thrown out was Alex Wagner, the sub on the seriously failing Rachel Maddow show. Rachel rarely shows up because she knows there’s nobody watching, and she also knows that she’s got less television persona than virtually anyone on television except, perhaps, Joy Reid. Then there’s, of course, the LOW IQ Con Man, Al Sharpton, who has, perhaps, the lowest TV ratings in the history of television. What is he doing to Brian Roberts to stay on the air? This whole corrupt operation is nothing more than an illegal arm of the Democrat Party. They should be forced to pay vast sums of money for the damage they’ve done to our Country. Fake News is an UNPARDONABLE SIN!

Fake News is an UNPARDONABLE SIN! So said the man whose wildly inaccurate statements go on and on and on.

For the record, Reid's program did, in fact, have very poor viewership ratings. That isn't true of Maddow's show, though her numbers don't come close to matching those of Hannity, the Fox News Channel's corresponding 9 p.m. program.

At any rate:

According to the commander in chief, MSNBC "should be forced to pay vast sums of money" to someone, though he didn't say to whom. 

He said that MSNBC was "an illegal arm of the Democrat [sic] Party," though he didn't offer an explanation of that serious charge. With respect to the insults he sprinkled through his post, you'll have to judge them yourself.

According to traditional norms, last evening's post should be scored as highly unusual conduct from an American president. Is it possible that something is actually wrong with this unusual person? 

As we noted all last week, our mainstream press corps has agreed that questions of that type must never be asked or discussed. This brings us to Peter Baker's front-page "News Analysis" piece in Sunday's New York Times. 

Over at Raw Story, Brad Reed said that Baker's piece advanced an "unusually blunt assessment" of Trump's ongoing behavior. We don't disagree with that. In print editions, headline included, Baker's piece started like this:

NEWS ANALYSIS
In Trump’s Alternate Reality, Lies and Distortions Drive Change

The United States sent $50 million in condoms to Hamas. Diversity programs caused a plane crash. China controls the Panama Canal. Ukraine started the war with Russia.

Except, no. None of that is true. Not that it stops President Trump. In the first month since he returned to power, he has demonstrated once again a brazen willingness to advance distortions, conspiracy theories and outright lies to justify major policy decisions.

Mr. Trump has long been unfettered by truth when it comes to boasting about his record and tearing down his enemies. But what were dubbed “alternative facts” in his first term have quickly become a whole alternative reality in his second to lay the groundwork for radical change as he moves to aggressively reshape America and the world.

The piece continues from there. Online, the dual headline says this:

NEWS ANALYSIS
In Trump’s Alternate Reality, Lies and Distortions Drive Change
Condoms for Gaza? Ukraine started the war with Russia? The president’s manipulations of the truth lay the groundwork for radical change.

We wouldn't necessarily agree with every one of Baker's representations. But we do agree with Reed. Yesterday, when we read Baker's piece, it struck us as "unusually blunt."

We thought the piece was unusually blunt. For what it's worth, we also thought it toed the line in a mandated way. 

Why exactly does President Trump behave in these unusual ways? Why does he make so many wild misstatements? Why does he persistently make highly unusual claims of the type he offered last night?

One possible explanation for this behavior went completely unexplored in Baker's lengthy analysis piece. For better or worse, the mainstream press corps has agreed that certain possibilities lie beyond the acceptable pale—that certain questions can't be asked, that certain types of experts and specialists must never be consulted about puzzlements of this type.

Was the president actually angry last night, or was he simply performing? Also, is it possible that something is actually "wrong" with this unusual person?

We can't answer that last question. For better or worse, even when they're being "unusually blunt," our journalists have agreed that they must never wonder or ask.

Last evening's post was highly unusual. Is it possible—could it be—that something is actually wrong?

"Unfit" is about as far as they'll go. We're asking if something is wrong.