Digby again, who starts off with the press reaction to "The Speech":
I don't have a lot of confidence left in the press, especially the Washington press corps: they've been so desperate for "access" since Reagan that they'll swallow anything the administration feeds them and spew it back out as "news." I think they should do what one commentator suggested when Sean Spicer barred major outlets from his "gaggle": Get off their butts and go out and do some digging for their stories. You know -- like real journalists.
Digby goes on to examine an element that has been part of Trump's campaign from the very beginning and, in spite of what you may have heard, is still central to his "vision". This image pretty much says it:
Read her piece. It's chilling.
In the hours leading up to President Trump’s speech to the joint session of Congress on Tuesday night the news networks were giddy with excitement. They had been told by a “senior White House official” in a private luncheon with news anchors that the president was now in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. This seemed to signal a major reset in the administration’s agenda and the media outlets couldn’t have been more thrilled.
Nobody knew whether that proposal would be part of the big speech but there was a lot of feverish speculation that Trump was planning to surprise the country with a long-awaited “pivot.” As we all know now, he didn’t mention any such possibility in the speech. It looks like the whole thing was just a ruse to fool the media into giving Trump big props in the run-up to the event.
CNN’s Sara Murray reported yesterday that the administration basically told the news anchors what they wanted to hear, what Trump officials believed “would give them positive press coverage for the next few hours.” She added that a “senior administration official” had admitted it was “a misdirection play.” Said John King:
It does make you wonder; so we’re not supposed to believe what the senior-most official at the lunch says — who then they allowed it to be the president’s name says — we’re not supposed to believe what they say? Maybe we shouldn’t believe what they say.
I don't have a lot of confidence left in the press, especially the Washington press corps: they've been so desperate for "access" since Reagan that they'll swallow anything the administration feeds them and spew it back out as "news." I think they should do what one commentator suggested when Sean Spicer barred major outlets from his "gaggle": Get off their butts and go out and do some digging for their stories. You know -- like real journalists.
Digby goes on to examine an element that has been part of Trump's campaign from the very beginning and, in spite of what you may have heard, is still central to his "vision". This image pretty much says it:
Read her piece. It's chilling.
2 comments:
Contrast the White House misdirection with their actual actions. Here's the story of a DACA applicant who qualified several times, but was arrested (not "detained") after giving a speech supporting Dreamers' quest for citizenship. She's been here since she was seven. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39150522 This is worse than disgraceful. We used to say someone like Trump talked out of both sides of his mouth. As I watch, however, I tend to think he speaks out of only one, the lying one, and the other is pretty much left to a life of leisure.
Trump is a pathetically inadequate excuse for a human being, and he's gathered around him a full crew of despicables ("deplorables" is way too gentle).
And the press will do its best to normalize him and his behavior.
Post a Comment