"We trust our readers to make up their own minds about his statement. And we think it’s news when an ex-President who may run in 2024 wrote what he did, even if (or perhaps especially if) his claims are bananas."
The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal says it is doing us a favor by letting Trump be Trump. After all, the public will eventually realize he is a dangerous nut job.
The public isn't figuring it out, and won't. Not when the Murdoch media machine is vouching for him.
The Murdoch family owns both the WSJ and Fox News. The newspaper noted that "the progressive parsons of the press are aflutter" over their having published without comment a letter from Donald Trump that presented bullet points of supposed fraud in the Pennsylvania vote. The WSJ said the falsehoods in his letter were too numerous to refute. They said there were a flood of misstatements and "it's difficult to respond to everything." They noted that this was no accident; "the asymmetry is part of the former President's strategy."
The "progressive parsons of the press" are also aflutter that Fox's Tucker Carlson is promoting an upcoming special report purporting that the "patriots" involved in storming the Capitol on January 6 are under attack by our gestapo government. As he tells it, the rioters in the Capital were heroes and victims-- or alternatively, maybe the whole operation was a "false flag" operation intended to defame Trump. Carlson, too, floods the zone with misstatements and conspiracies.
The Wall Street Journal wants it both ways. It recognizes that Trump is unique in American politics in his ability to gain attention by making wild, fully contradicted statements. A big segment of Americans loves what he says and believe him. That segment is a giant market share for a media company and very possibly it is a governing majority of American voters. Trump has a salesman's talent for shameless and persistent reiteration of what the customer wants to believe. He sells the world's greatest steaks. He won the 2020 election in a massive landslide.
The newspaper's editorial page quietly observed what their news pages have reported. The editorial wrote flatly that Trump lost the election in Pennsylvania by over 80,000 votes. Trump's misstatements about the Pennsylvania election are part of his justification for overturning the 2020 election. Marketers understand what is going on here. The Journal is selling the Trump sizzle, but putting in a throw-away disclaimer. "Your mileage may vary." "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."
The Journal's position in publicizing Trump without contradiction, or in the case of Tucker Carlson, actively promoting election conspiracies, is analogous to a widespread practice of GOP officeholders and opinion leaders. There are the people out there on front lines--Marjorie Taylor Green, Michael Flynn--in full-throated support of Trump. There is also a larger body of quiet or "disclaimer" partisans. They don't believe Trump and they recognize he sounds dishonest, overwrought, "bananas" even, but they will let Trump be Trump because he gets them what they want, a riled up passionate base which will cast a convenient vote for the Republican team, even if based on a false and dangerous premise. The officeholders and thought leaders hope silence or a throw-away disclaimer tag relieves them of the responsibility for allowing to continue unchecked someone who attempted to overthrow constitutional government.
The movie Annie Hall describes a complicated romantic relationship between Woody Allen and Diane Keaton. The movie ends with Woody Allen narrating these words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-M3Q2zhGd4 I thought of that old joke, you know. The guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, my brother's crazy. He thinks he's a chicken." and the doctor says, "well, why don't you turn him in?" and the guy says, "I would, but I need the eggs."
Well, I guess that's pretty much now how I feel about relationships. You know, they're totally irrational and crazy and absurd and, but I guess we keep going through it because most of us need the eggs.
There is a problem with the GOP's complicated relationship with a Donald Trump. They are getting eggs, but the eggs are poisoning our democracy. Many Republican leaders know the eggs are poison, but they have seen what happened to Liz Cheney when she said so. Better to just eat the eggs.
[Note: to subscribe, go to https://petersage.substack.com The blog is free and always will be.]
22 comments:
The WSJ printed something no other reputable publication would touch. Its rationale is extremely flimsy. Claiming that it's up to readers to determine the veracity of its journalism, under the shield of opinion, is irresponsible to the extreme, more appropriate to a supermarket tabloid.
That said, I doubt many MAGA hats are subscribers, which may be a more plausible explanation. It simply could be a ploy to increase circulation, and we may soon see it in the checkout line where it will compete with stories of Elvis sightings.
There should be mass resignations from any remaining principled journalists, but I won't hold my breath.
Some critics like to imagine that if the media stopped talking about Trump, he’d go away. That’s wishful thinking. The fact is, he’s the undisputed leader of the Republican Party. He’s a Hitler wannabe and they love him for it. Their current platform is whatever Trump wants, and Trump wants to be able to overturn elections. The party is working on that for him. Republicans aren’t devoted to Trump in spite of his madness, but because of it. In other words, they’re as crazy as he is. If we want to preserve our Republic, we need to confront the craziness, not ignore it.
Let's not go the way of the Weimar Republic.
Oh now you caint believe everythin you read. Why take uncle Don, there in the back room. He ain't crazy like all them doctors and experts keep sayin he is. He's just a little eccentric that's all, just like the rest of us. He's just got to have a little time to grow on you that's all.
I deleted a troll-ish nasty comment. It included some legitimate points, but ruined itsekf with its nasty name calling. Was it by Curt Ankerberg? Possibly. It sounded like him when the writer lost control and began being nasty, but it might have been someone imitating him, imperfectly. A judge found that Ankerberg committed fraud for several years. His defense was that he has a mental disability that allowed him/caused him fraudulently to underpay his taxes. Readers be warned. He is a Republican and Trump supporter and frequent candidate for office.
If Ankerberg writes Ankerberg-style comments here, I will need to continue to remind readers about his legal problems, admitted mental incapacity, and reputation, so they are well warned.
In the case of the Republican Party and it’s establishment (vis a vis its MAGA) supporters, the EGGS are low taxes on the wealthy, a poorly funded IRS, and low regulation on predatory and polluting businesses. If the means to those ends is the corrosion and ultimate destruction of our democracy by Donald Trump, so be it.
There has always been a noted divide in the WSJ between its editorial pages and its news pages. I happen to think its news reporting is the best in the country.
Also, this was not an editorial. To refuse to publish it could well pour petrol on flames of conspiracy theories.
Let it speak for itself and interpretations and rebuttals go forward.
While Trump continues to egg his base on, Democrats will cluck uselessly about their chickenshit woke concerns while ignoring the valid concerns of the Fox viewers who have invaded their henhouse. The coop is coming…
The Journal like any newspaper is well withing its rights--and obligations--to print a letter to the Editor from an ex-President, no matter the content. That would also be so if he warned of imminent attack from the planet Xenu.
Meanwhile, a headline I just saw on a right-wing news aggregator captures all this perfectly: "The Only Thing Biden Has Left Is Trump". Democrats, period. If Youngkin wins in Virginia next week, the flood is on, and quite deservedly.
The coop is coming? What the...
There's nothing chickenshit about being concerned for our democracy, nor anything valid about Fox viewers' whining over "election fraud" and a "stolen election." Nor was the Jan. 6 insurrection a "false flag" operation, no matter how many whackos claim it to be.
Mike,
So, puns aren't your thing? :-)
Peter, please disallow comments under misappropriated real names.
It makes the comment section idiotic.
Kamala has the reverse Midas touch. Negative charisma, including that weird cackling laugh when she has no idea what to say.
Joe definitely didn’t pick a VP who could outshine him. He just checked off a couple of affirmative action diversity categories: black, female.
Thank you, Peter for deleting those posts. They serve no purpose that I've ever been able to determine.
Peter:
Some whacko used my wife's name to make an irrelevant comment. I can assure you that isn't her post. It must be from Angerberg - he's the only one I know obsessed enough to troll the names of family members.
Michael Steely
I deleted some posts done in the Curt Ankerberg style, i.e. anonymous or using other people's names. They usually are obvious from the content that they are fake. Every time Curt Ankerberg comments in an obscene comment, I will delete it and remind readers that Ankdrberg is a Republican and Trump supporter, which brings discredit onto the GOP and Trump. Let him vandalize his team if he wants. And yet a reader observed that it is like encountering dog poop on the sidewalk. It is unlovely. So rather than leave the poop there, to besmirch the reputation of local Republicans and Trump and Ankerberg himself, I clean it up. Then I use the poop as a chance to remind readers that a judge found that Ankerberg filed fraudulent tax returns for multiple years and that his defense in the case was that he has a mental disability that explains his bad behavior. So readers can beware of Ankerberg if and when he runs for something again.
Ankerberg is not stupid. He has the capacity to write perfectly reasonable comments here or elsewhere. What he lacks is the self discipline to do so. he prefers to be a vandal.
The good news is that he trashes the reputation of Trump, who I consider anti-democratic and dangerous. Trump has many skills and he understands the media environment, which keeps him in the news. But Trump self-destructs with impulsive dishonest behavior. Ankerberg has the same flaw. Trump cannot help himself. Neither,I think, can Ankerberg. If Ankerberg weren't self-destructing he might well be a Medford City Councilperson or County Commissioner or State Senator. He has the mental capacity to be a good one. . But he apparently cannot help himself. He chooses to be a vandal to his own reputation. And Trump's. And Republicanss'.
I suppose I am better off with Ankerberg's self destruction than I would be if Ankerberg chose to write probing, smart comments like Trigoboff and Low Dudgeon. He could be dangerous and persuasive. But there is nothing persuasive about dog poop on the sidewalk.
Peter Sage
Nice.
I sincerely doubt that anyone named "Sally" made all those deranged comments. The person who did told the IRS he has "water on the brain." I think sewage is the more likely culprit.
Trump supporter Curt Ankerberg, or someone who mimics Ankerberg's tactics, wrote a series of post he attributed to "Sally." I have deleted them. Ankerberg admitted to the tax court that he has a mental disability so profound that it explains his having filed fraudulent tax returns for multiple years.
Peter Sage
Good work controlling the troll, Peter.
I know this is late. This post and comments got me thinking. I have some questions and I'm hoping that some of the more insightful people here can enlighten me. Let's suppose the WSJ represents the interests of The Wealthy (upper case intentional) and investor class (and of course wannabees), and those who manage Investors' assets - like Blackrock, Bridgewater, JP Morgan, etc...
Why would the WSJ/Murdoch empire (and their cronies) prefer Trump's vision of a less democratic and more oligarchical form or government if it did not serve their interests? I'm wondering that they don't think of wealth as merely financial, but as a lever for geopolitical power, where politicians like Trump are simply useful fools - and they pull the strings? That the American public are mere pawns - like all Oligarchs have though history?
Thoughts anyone? (especially would like to hear from Low Dudgeon)
I think we have a plutocracy and perhaps always have. "The Wealthy" own the politicians who depend on their money to get elected. The senators and representatives then do the bidding of their corporate sponsors. That's why the government still sponsors fossil fuels, even though they're literally killing us.
Dick Cheney was an example of eliminating the middle man. Rather than buy a politician, Halliburton made their CEO our vice president. He promptly used his position to get the U.S. to invade Iraq, awarding no-bid contracts to Halliburton.
For what it’s worth, John C., I believe that Rupert Murdoch and even more so the son he’s picked as his main heir despise Trump as a vulgar, undisciplined arriviste, which is pretty, um, rich coming from Australian gutter-press kingpins. Trump railed against Fox News (except for Hannity and Judge Jeanine) for months before and after the election because they would not indulge his idiocies not even as plausibilities. The WSJ has retained a pretty free editorial hand, in my opinion. Old school conservative oligarchs like the Cheneys and Bushes loathe Trump because they sense he’s all about personal adulation at any cost, whereas they pride themselves on doing well by the little people as they—because they—enrich themselves and increase their influence.
Post a Comment