As so often with
journalists, it's hard to tell.
Does anyone have *any clue* what Trump was rambling about during his insane Mount Rushmore speech (as dark a speech as any American president has ever given)? If someone is trying to tear down statues of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, I haven't heard a d*** thing about it.
I'd almost be willing to bet my sister, for example, hasn't heard a d*** thing about it. The cloak of silence is powerful. The Upton Sinclair quotation nails it:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
I notice that Seth Abramson inserted the requisite descriptor "dark," but I hope someone warns him he left out "divisive." That's no way to stay off the tumbrel.
Some of you know my attitude toward the NLMSM, and some of you know that sometimes it really is malice that's responsible for bad behavior, not mere incompetence.
ReplyDeleteHere, though: Abramson is a journalist, and very good at his trade. Words are his stock in trade. He knew exactly what he was...tweeting; he knew exactly what he was going to tweet when he formed the thought.
Furthermore, it's a journalist's job to know the facts and the environment and context in which they exist, however an objective or biased or jaundiced view he might take of those facts. And Abramson is a very good journalist.
*Of course* Abramson knows about the attacks on various Washington and Lincoln statues--the Emancipation Statue, that statue of Lincoln welcoming to his new life a newly freed, shackles broken, black man who is starting to stand, especially has been in the news.
Abramson is acting--skillfully--like a maven of his street walker profession when he pretends to know nothing of those attacks.
Eric Hines
Trump is regarded as dark because he identifies the wrong bad guys. I sometimes wonder if that is the only motive of these journalists: Our guys win, your guys lose.
ReplyDeleteIt has considerable predictive power, at any rate.
I just love those videos of election night 2016. Can't wait for the crop of 2020.
ReplyDeleteSome of you know my attitude toward the NLMSM, and some of you know that sometimes it really is malice that's responsible for bad behavior, not mere incompetence.
ReplyDeleteI covered that before, at least one here disagrees with that fundamental point, although I don't see any discussion of it recently.
It's kind of big though.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5173950&postID=1793947141608844431&isPopup=true
Incompetence and good intentions leading to Hell are adequate explanations - malice is unnecessary.-AVI
What does real oppression have to do with people's intentions? No idea, and no answer too.
Last time I checked, the majority of regulars here believed in the certainty that it was always or nearly always most of the time, incompetence or good intentions being adequate explanations. Correct?
As time went on, in the recent years, this has shifted, but I haven't tallied any official vote on that. So how many are "sure" it is still incompetence or some such, vs how many are in doubt or less sure that there are other things going on?
When there is no doubt, the truth cannot be reached?