Here's something I never imagined myself saying: I agree with the Trump surrogate (whose name I can't remember--but he is a smug little fellow who appears regularly on MSNBC, where I saw him last night) when he said that the major news outlets were being unfair to Trump, because on one hand they regularly accuse him of being obdurate, yet when he yields his position he is invariably described in desultory terms. So now that he's (finally) relented and let the government re-open, news banners are saying that he "caved," he "blinked," he "backed down," he "wimped out."
Now, just to be clear:
(1) I hate Trump, and am praying that he is run out of office (preferably on a rail) any minute now.
(2) I blame him for the shutdown, and think it is criminal that he did it and unforgivable that he caused it to continue for so long.
But using insulting terms to describe his actions when he's not being recalcitrant...when plenty of neutral terms are available...doesn't seem like fair game to me.
I guess I'm just an old-fashioned guy, but I thought that the job of the news was to tell me what happened, not tell me what to think about what happened. I thought that was called propaganda.
UPDATE: Oh, it was Rick Santorum. He's back on CNN this morning saying pretty much the same thing...and I still have to agree with him on this point. The other members of the panel are either ignoring what he's saying or acting like they smell an elephant turd, though. I don't think failing to acknowledge an obvious truth is advancing the liberal cause, do you?
Just sayin', sir.
Just sayin', sir.
No comments:
Post a Comment