Is it any wonder that consumers of news no longer trust main stream media outlets? Take a look at this click bait from the venerable Globe and Mail, 175 years old. In an editorial, June 3, the author, unknown; I presume someone at the paper as it is an EDITORIAL, wrote this about Donald Trump:
“He is a serial liar, a tawdry name-caller, a consorter with white supremacists.”
That was the second sentence and I was done.
This has been a meme for the left since Donald Trump put his hat into the ring. And then when he won! Well, that can’t be allowed.
Over and over consumers of media were told that Trump was a very bad man and an antisemite, and he hated Muslims and women! Well…
And so antisemites, white supremacists, the KKK voted for him because they believed the media.
“James Mason, the man whose writings provide an ideology of virulent anti-Semitism for the group, the Atomwaffen Division, told NPR in the Frontline PBS documentary called “Documenting Hate,” that he was thrilled with Trump because the President’s mantra is Make America Great Again. And to Mason this meant make America white again. And that of course means-wink, wink, nod, nod-that Trump is antisemitic. And why not be thrilled with the prospect of Donald Trump as President? David Duke was on cloud nine.”
Can you imagine their shock when over time he did not fulfil their expectations?
Trump has a daughter who converted to Orthodox Judaism. He has grandchildren who are Orthodox Jews. And he supports the right of Israel to exist as Jewish state. And he moved America’s embassy to the capital of Israel; Jerusalem. How do you think that went over with the KKK and their friends? I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that many Muslims may not like Trump because of his stance on Israel and Iran. I have no doubt one could turn this on its head and say that Trump is anti-Islam for his positions.
I contacted the public editor of the Globe and Mail regarding the ‘facts” in this editorial. My first emails were just questions. They morphed into a media inquiry. When I pointed out that Trump likes Jews the public editor came back with this:
“I think you can consort with those who are anti-Muslim, anti-black etc and not be anti-Jewish. You might want to offer a letter to the editor on this.”
What do you say to the public editor of one of Canada’s most prominent papers when she is changing the definition of white supremacy to support the author of the editorial? Long before anti-Muslim-(the term is anti-Islam;it is against an ideology, not a person) there was anti-black and antisemitism. I am thinking the KKK.
The public editor is responsible for ensuring that the journalistic standards of the paper are met. So, now I am left wondering how many other definitions have been changed to make articles ethically acceptable?
So Trump’s anti-black.
I sent the following missive:
“You are suggesting that Donald Trump is a racist. Has he been a racist while in office? If so, please share the facts. He has black people in his cabinet. He helped release black prisoners. He appointed the first black, female general. Please have the author provide to you the facts that prove that Trump is anti-black.”
I again asked about those white supremacists with whom he IS consorting, as the present tense was used in the editorial.
Here was the response to that:
“And there is ample evidence that Mr. Trump has associated with people who might be reasonably be described as such including Darren Beattie, a speechwriter who spoke to the HL Mencken Club, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Michael Anton and others.
As I said before, I don’t think there is anything factually wrong or unethical in the editorial…
Really? “Ample evidence-people who might be reasonably described as…” So I wrote:
“You included “Steve Bannon in this; a man who has gone out of his way to protect and defend Jews and the Jewish state-I wish all white supremacists were as antisemitic. Now Stephen Miller is a white supremacist? Who does not make the list? Darren Beattie was fired.
Love to know the names of the “others.”
I was asked repeatedly to write a letter to the editor. Why? So I could feed the base? A little more red meat, some more fuel on the fire? Can you imagine the responses to a letter that pointed out factually that Donald Trump is not a white supremacist?
Instead of writing a letter to the editor,I decided to send a media inquiry to the Editorial page editor, Tony Keller, on June 5 after two days of correspondence with the Public Editor.
In the June 3, 2019 editorial, the writer stated President Trump is a consorter with white supremacists. Please provide the names of these white supremacists with whom he consorts in the present. Please provide the source for these names.
What is the Globe and Mail’s definition of white supremacists. I ask as Ms Stead has provide one that excludes antisemitism.
Please respond by 5PM today, June 5.
If you require more time, please let me know.
Here was the response. Wait for it. Wait for it…
This is the state of main stream media, today. Feed the base. Encourage that Pavlovian response to Trump by making untrue statements. And when called out for FakeNews? Blame Trump.
I am all for opinion. Free speech separates us from the fascists, but I expect facts to underpin those opinions; especially editorials. As far as I am aware, based on the responses to my questions and the lack of response, this author from the paper had no facts to support the second sentence in the editorial. What happened to journalistic ethics? What happened to demanding facts?
Why are we so divided in the West? Because journalists stopped doing their jobs; holding all institutions and public people to equal account. Instead we have social justice journalists who pit one group against another by playing with facts; by getting them wrong or just leaving them out.
#FakeNews is the state of the media in the 21st century. How sad.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: “Rabbi Tarfon used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it.”