Trump and the Press

The latest controversy involving President Trump concerns his comments about "fake news" being the enemy of the people. Is the left overreacting yet again, or do we have a serious issue? In blog posts last month and this month, I have shown the overreaction, and/or application of the double standard, to all things Trump - his "dark" inaugural speech, his "un-American" immigration policy, and his "illegitimate" ability to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, having "stolen" that seat from Obama.

Let's start with this - most (all?) Presidents have had issues the press. And for those who may not recall it, the Obama Administration attacked Fox News from the very beginning of Obama's term in office. Obama sent his top advisers to the Sunday talk shows in an effort to delegitimize Fox News. Obama's Communications Director, Anita Dunn, said Fox was an "arm of the Republican Party," and not a legitimate news organization. Top political adviser, David Axelrod, said Fox was "not really a news station," telling George Stephanopolous of ABC that "other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way."

Then, we had Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, assert that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." Emanuel added: "more importantly is not to have the CNNs and others in the world basically be led by Fox." Obama's Executive Pay Czar (yes, there was such a position), Ken Feinberg, gave interviews to the White House "pool" news organizations - but would not invite Fox. Anita Dunn, again: "We're going to treat them (Fox) the way we would an opponent...As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

Obama: "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my Administration." And on the White House web site at the time: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest 'Truth-O-Meter' feature from Politifact..." The Obama Administration was sufficiently successful in its attacks on Fox, that this writer would frequently see bumper stickers with these words: "Ban Fox News." So, let's be honest. That was the goal of Obama - if he could not ban Fox, he could, at times, have his Administration exclude them, and seek to convince the American people that Fox was an enemy of his Administration.

The questions we ought to be asking need to consider this - Obama had virtually the entire mainstream media behind him, all the major newspapers, the network television stations, cable stations CNN and MSNBC. So why did he care about one station that did not support him? Was he that thin-skinned that he could not tolerate any criticism? Was it a dictatorial urge to shut down the one station that opposed him? Now, compare that to what Trump is facing - he has one station (Fox) that only partly supports him. It is clear that not all Fox hosts and commentators support Trump. But all the mainstream media outlets (the newspapers, the network television stations, the other cable stations) that supported Obama, now take daily aim at Trump and his Administration and policies.

The above does not suggest that Trump should get a free pass on everything he says about the media. Trump: "They (the media) shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name. Let their name be put out there." Totally wrong! Anonymous and unnamed sources often provide valuable background to a story. Hopefully, today's media will not go forward with major news stories absent verification from a second or even third source (something we saw Woodward and Bernstein having to do in "All The President's Men"). But any suggestion that the media should somehow be regulated to require all sources be named would be a direct violation of the First Amendment, and any effort to impose such a rule must be vigorously fought.

Trump: "Fake news media knowingly doesn't tell the truth. A great danger to our country." This blog has made a similar point. I have commented that the "Fourth Estate," which holds a special, Constitutionally protected status, becomes a danger to our democracy when it consistently sides with one party, while consistently attacking and demonizing the other side. But when each new batch of journalists come from the same left-wing academic institutions, how much hope is there that we can expect them to hold both sides accountable when they abuse their power and positions? Obama and his people saw one news organization, Fox News, as an arm of the Republican Party. Those of us who are conservative view most of the mainstream media as an arm of the Democratic Party. And much of the American public agrees.

Trump also called "fake news" an "enemy" of the people. Would I have counseled that he use such language? No. Do I wish Trump was more circumspect and less careless in his use of language? Obviously. (See the first paragraph of the last post for confirmation of that.) But a large part of Trump's appeal is his willingness to fight back. He is not going to just sit there and take it when the mainstream media either lies, or applies the double standard against his policies - after previously praising the same or similar policies coming from Democrats. To borrow from Anita Dunn's comment, and replacing "Trump" for "Obama": "As they are undertaking a war against Donald Trump and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Fake news?