Analysis by Kyle A. Lohmeier
It has occurred to me recently that President Donald J. Trump might have just given the American people the greatest gift any person could possibly bestow upon us: an actual watchdog press. Then, it occurred to me that his negative press and intense scrutiny just fits a pattern in media coverage and aren’t evidence of journalism returning to its rightful role in this nation. But, it should be fun to watch anyway, at least.
In the early days of this nation the press was generally antagonistic toward authority of all sorts, and instances of politicians accusing the press of printing falsehoods abounded. Whether consistently accurate or not, for the press to receive so much derision from government, it had to be doing something right – and all politicians, from mayors to presidents, were under the cross-hairs.
Then, something happened.
Maybe it had something to do with cheerleading the first Gulf War the way the media did, and then being stung by backlash. Maybe it was the emergence of the 24-hour cable news networks and the homogenizing affect they, particularly CNN, had on what Americans thought of as “news” as network and regional news anchors became less relevant. Perhaps it was the rare and unmatched charisma of Bill Clinton. Likely, it was a combination of several factors, many of which I haven’t even considered.
Whatever the cause, the early 1990s saw the mainstream American news media take a distinct leftward tack that it never steered back from; thereby creating the market demand to justify the existence of the Fox News Network as a counterweight. Regardless of the source, however, “news” coverage got a lot less critical of government in general, most especially when Democrats were in office, and a lot less substantive in terms of what stories get covered and how. Twice, in as many years, 2002 and 2003, the government murdered American civilians in broad daylight, at Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas, respectively. The media cheered the government and cast the victims as “extremists” and “weirdos.”
Then, in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the media effectively curled up and went to sleep on George W. Bush’s lap. Of course we were going to war in Afghanistan, and questions as to why the U.S. needed to invade Iraq in 2003 went largely unasked. The New York Times suppressed a story on the NSA’s illegal surveillance programs for 13 months; thirteen months that included the 2004 presidential elections. Had Ed Snowden’s revelations come to light during the campaign, George W. Bush may well have lost that election.
Almost as a reward for handing Bush a second term, the mainstream media was given a young, almost-as-charismatic-as-Bill-Clinton democrat who also had the added benefits of being a relative newcomer to high-level politics and was black. That the MSM would decide Barack Obama could do no wrong was a given, despite the fact their narratives kept getting farther and farther away from the reality real Americans were experiencing on the ground, living their day to day lives as the years wore on. In the background, Bush’s unpopular wars waged on, though the drop in U.S. casualties due to the shifting of most of the killing to drones from U.S. soldiers and Marines made it easier for the MSM to gloss over it; nobody cares much about foreign civilian casualties, particularly if they go unmentioned.
Taking the focus off of substantive matters allowed the MSM time to cover the social wedge issues that make for great TV because they play purely upon people’s emotions. Here, the media’s own leftist bent was allowed to shape the coverage of such issues until the tone became instructive: here’s what we’re saying happened, here’s how to feel about it. Again, however; Americans were starting to catch on. They could no longer deny the gulf between what they’re being told and what they can see around them with their own eyes.
As the 2016 election season approached, that the mainstream media had already anointed Hillary as the next president was plainly obvious, and they kept up that angle in their coverage of her right on through Rachel Maddow’s teary election night. Having already dismissed Trump as a lost cause politically, and a monster personally, they covered him thusly; again, right on up through election night.
Of course the MSM, and idiots like me who still occasionally give them too much credit, were completely blindsided by Trump’s victory. The editors of the New York Times published a hilarious half-apology for their coverage of this “erratic and unpredictable election,” promising to rededicate themselves to reporting on “America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.” Good idea.
And, clearly, the media’s tone since January 20, 2017 has changed markedly when it comes to covering the actions of the United States government and its figurehead. While Obamacare was hailed as the greatest political achievement since Magna Carta and probably even better, the practically minute and philosophically irrelevant changes Trump has proposed to it are being covered as the worst things ever.
Just yesterday I described how the MSM is intentionally misleading Americans when it comes to the CIA’s authority to launch drone strikes in foreign countries; in reality, it remains unchanged from Obama’s policy.
His plans for the wall, tariffs on Mexican imports and his travel bans have all gotten the fierce scrutiny they deserve.
We, at the very least, and for the first time in a very long time, do not have a press that disgustingly fawns over the government, excuses all of its evil and actively cooperates to hide it from the American people. At least, so far as they’re letting on; so far as we can tell.
The tone is undeniably critical, and consistently so. He can do nothing right as far as the press is concerned. Sure, much of what the press will say about Trump will turn out to be untrue. There will be exaggerations and fabrications. Even when he tries to make a noble gesture, it’ll be greeted with cynical skepticism. Every mainstream newscast and publication outside of known conservative outlets will continuously heap derision upon the person and presidency of Donald J. Trump for the next three-and-some-change-years.
That this is way, way more refreshing and far, far less nauseating than the endless fawning the press would have engaged in over the person and presidency of Hillary goes without saying.
No, we still don’t have a true “watchdog press;” but we at least have one that will undermine and seek to invalidate the current government and its figurehead, as much as they’ll be allowed to by the oligarchs, anyway.
Given that we were going to get Hillary or Trump no matter what, we might as well enjoy watching the MSM actually attack government for a change. Who knows when we’ll see this again?
Leave a Reply