Today's NY Times describes the event I saw on Sunday night.
Here is a link to it; http://goo.gl/zcv3TR
 |
Opening section of NY Times Editorial |
I read the news today, oh boy.
Part of the reward of traveling 2,500 miles to see events live and up close is that I can compare what I see with my own eyes with what I read in the newspaper.
I was there. I was at the event. The New York Times has it wrong.
Deep into the editorial they cite a fact that I considered central to the event: "Sunday's event was peaceful." That it is. The event was peaceful. Oh. Where is the news story there??
A couple of people with anti-Trump signs were escorted out of the venue by security people. The rally was "private" in the sense that the Trump campaign rented it for the night, so they had control (and responsibility) for the venue. Under the circumstances it was way better not to have protesters and supporters mixing it up in a dark outdoor space after sundown. After all, had they been there together, jostling and mixing it up, then trouble could easily have broken out. This isn't tyranny; it is pro-active crowd control in a situation that could have had disturbances, but did not, due to active, vigilant policing.
Part of the reward of traveling 2,500 miles to see events live and up close is that I can compare what I see with my own eyes with what I read in the newspaper.
I was there. I was at the event. The New York Times has it wrong.
Deep into the editorial they cite a fact that I considered central to the event: "Sunday's event was peaceful." That it is. The event was peaceful. Oh. Where is the news story there??
A couple of people with anti-Trump signs were escorted out of the venue by security people. The rally was "private" in the sense that the Trump campaign rented it for the night, so they had control (and responsibility) for the venue. Under the circumstances it was way better not to have protesters and supporters mixing it up in a dark outdoor space after sundown. After all, had they been there together, jostling and mixing it up, then trouble could easily have broken out. This isn't tyranny; it is pro-active crowd control in a situation that could have had disturbances, but did not, due to active, vigilant policing.
I will reiterate: I am not a Trump fan. I attempt to report what I see. The media wants controversy and it is unquestionably more interesting than reporting that Trump gave yet another version of the same old speech. The news is not that Trump "Gives License to Violence"; it is that Trump and his event organizers squelched the potential for violence with aggressive pro-active efforts. The event had lots of police.
Is this bad? Not to my mind. My wife cautioned me, "Be careful, Peter", as I drove to the event. There was concern that it might be rowdy or underpriced. In fact it was over-policed. OK by me.
Is this bad? Not to my mind. My wife cautioned me, "Be careful, Peter", as I drove to the event. There was concern that it might be rowdy or underpriced. In fact it was over-policed. OK by me.
Does the NYTimes Editorial Board acknowledge Trump's adjustment in tone and words from encouraging do-it-yourself crowd control to professional policing? No. It looks back, ignoring what is happening in front of their reporters' eyes, to report what is no longer true, missing the story of what was happening now. And it condemns Trump for the act of separating rally-goers from protesters, safely and effectively using uniformed police who acted very professionally. The headline above would be more accurate had Trump NOT made the adjustment and had allowed or encouraged sign-carrying protesters to taunt sign-carrying supporters. But he did.
And of course Trump crowed about it, bragging about how he has taken action, that he wants law and order, etc. He didn't frame it as having changed his mind and knuckled under. He framed it as him doing the right thing, a guy devoted to public safety and respect of the work of the police. Is this a surprise? What else would a politically savvy politician do?
Does the Times question the sincerity of Trump? Sure. I would expect that. Indeed, I question his sincerity, especially since Trump would be far better off if there were some visible protesters at every rally, people there keeping Trump leading the 24-7 news cycle. We will see and report that as the campaign unfolds. If he isn't sincere he will relax the crowd control and incidents will happen and then that will become news. But as of today the story is not the violence at the events. The story is the opposite: violence squelched.
And of course Trump crowed about it, bragging about how he has taken action, that he wants law and order, etc. He didn't frame it as having changed his mind and knuckled under. He framed it as him doing the right thing, a guy devoted to public safety and respect of the work of the police. Is this a surprise? What else would a politically savvy politician do?
Does the Times question the sincerity of Trump? Sure. I would expect that. Indeed, I question his sincerity, especially since Trump would be far better off if there were some visible protesters at every rally, people there keeping Trump leading the 24-7 news cycle. We will see and report that as the campaign unfolds. If he isn't sincere he will relax the crowd control and incidents will happen and then that will become news. But as of today the story is not the violence at the events. The story is the opposite: violence squelched.
Lots of people had signs at the event, and it shows the general public sentiment of the rally-goers. Here is a sample.
 |
| Venue by Daylight--giant flag |
 |
| 3 Word Message |
 |
| Venue by Night: light by 5000 cell phones |
 |
| Trump supporter |
No comments:
Post a Comment