WSJ on DJT Mt. Rushmore speech

[Wellesnet]

The Press on Mount Rushmore
When Donald Trump is gone and forgotten, the media’s lies won’t be so easy to forget. By Holman Jenkins
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press- ... 1594162964

Every American, regardless of how he or she feels about Donald Trump, should read his July 3 speech at Mount Rushmore and then the Washington Post account of the speech by Robert Costa and Philip Rucker. The Post account begins: “President Trump’s unyielding push to preserve Confederate symbols and the legacy of white domination, crystallized by his harsh denunciation of the racial justice movement Friday night at Mount Rushmore . . .”

Except that Mr. Trump made no reference to the Confederacy or any of its symbols. His only reference to the Civil War was to Abraham Lincoln and the abolition of slavery as a fulfillment of the American Revolution.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, as many commentators on the right noted, also lied when she said Mr. Trump “spent all his time talking about dead traitors.” He mentioned not a single leader or champion of the Confederacy.

In its own account, though hardly friendly to Mr. Trump, the New York Times went out of its way to counter these rampant distortions, reporting that Mr. Trump “avoided references . . . to the symbols of the Confederacy that have been a target of many protests.”

A day later, when he unleashed his uninformed Twitter rant about Nascar’s misconstrued noose incident and an unexplained “flag” reference possibly related to its ban on Confederate symbols, the Times again noted of Mr. Trump’s holiday speech, “In that address he avoided specifically mentioning anything related to Confederate monuments.”

Which I’m guessing means that Trump-defending pundits aren’t the only ones troubled by the Rubicon we’ve crossed when mainstream press outlets and a U.S. senator flagrantly lie about the content of a presidential address.

Welcome to one of the weirdest moments I’ve witnessed in the national press business. All this comes not long after a Times profile of Post editor Marty Baron, portraying him as a fading, old-school newsman battling a “woke” newsroom.

It comes as a straw-man version of “media objectivity” is widely attacked by journalists as a pillar of white supremacy.

Mr. Baron is quoted as saying: “The Post is more than a collection of individuals who wish to express themselves. The reputation of The Post must prevail over any one individual’s desire for expression.” His admirable words echo a favorite passage from the great Peter Drucker: “Every first-rate editor I have ever heard of reads, edits and rewrites every word that goes into his publication. . . . Good editors are not ‘permissive’; they do not let their colleagues do ‘their thing’; they make sure that everybody does the ‘paper’s thing.’ ”

Drucker, who died in 2005, understood the perils of group think and biased reasoning. He helped invent modern management education to guard against such errors. He and Mr. Baron were right: In the business of the press, it ultimately falls to management to impose standards (known as intellectual honesty) on employees, some of whom will actively work against such standards if given the chance.

My guess is the real key to the Post episode is its monotonous reference to “racial justice demonstrators” and “racial justice protesters.” Any intelligent reader, even if unfamiliar with the term, will recognize the fallacy of begging the question, or presuming that which needs to be proved. Even Mr. Trump is capable of understanding that the people in the street have multiple, discordant and not automatically creditable motives.

What we may really see in the Post’s disingenuous formulation is an attempt to appease its own newsroom, by some unnamed editor who cared less about putting a good and honest piece of writing in front of Post readers than about protecting himself from personal blowback. (I’m assuming it’s a “him”; such cowards usually are.)

So we return to a signature astonishment of our age. After almost four years in office, Mr. Trump has not managed to damage his own reputation (as any libel lawyer will tell you, he had no reputation to damage). He has done less damage to his office than you might think for the simple and obvious reason that people distinguish Mr. Trump from his office.

Seemingly effortlessly, though, he has incited people and institutions that do have something to lose to wreck their own reputations: The FBI, CNN, our universities, etc.

Tens of millions of voters who plan to vote against Mr. Trump in the fall hardly need Post lies to give them more reason to do so. But millions of others will vote for Mr. Trump, or consider voting for him, exactly because the Washington Post lies about him. Their wavering support at this point in his ill-starred presidency is sustained only by the deranged dishonesty of his opponents.

So here we are: America faces the virus, the protests, a new and dangerous tension with China, and the most tumultuous election in recent memory. And it does so without thought leadership worth the name, with only intellectual and emotional chaos, from some of our once-credible news organizations.

[Wellesnet]

*

Warren:
Trump may be brash but he speaks for the majority of Americans who want to be proud of their country (and their memorials and statues) have decent jobs to raise their families, and to avoid the race baiting demagoguery of the Democrats. For that Trump will win in November

*

You definitely do not want to use a comparison between Trump and Biden's cognitive abilities as an issue that could any way be of benefit to your leader. That will not end well.
Trump already has extensive integrity, character, judgement , and temperament deficits in relation to Joe. Cognition comparisons would just be piling on.
Their is a growing view among scientists that a trained chimp could do a much better job than Trump with less expense.

You simply point out another reason to ignore scientists.

*

I posted a comment on Fox News a few weeks ago to say that I was voting for Biden. (partly to play the part of a troll - it was fun to watch the reaction) I was so enraged at his handling of the protests that I was done with him. However, I'm back in Trump's camp again precisely because I don't want to hand victory to the Press. They disgust me.

Why? Because you can't handle the truth?

*

What Trump really did was to rip off the bandages and scabs of the elite. At best we are watching the pus ooze out and the healing process beginning. At worst we are watching institutional suicide.

I can't stomach Trump, but at this moment, I'd have to vote for him just to spite the press.

*

LeBay: Why do you hate Trump? I’ve asked that question to some who have expressed hatred. I have yet to get a substantive answer. In fact not one of the many could name a single policy decision he made. When I’ve asked if they want policies in accord with socialism, they say they don’t want those policies. One person even assumed that socialist policies belonged to Trump. The media is doing enormous harm to our country. They are so determined to destroy Trump that they are willing to destroy the country. That is a result of a failed education system. In fact, that is ground zero, the real cause for the media liars and the carnage and the tragedy of inner city minorities who can’t get a fair shot.

I agree with your theme but not the process, Ms. LeBey. The media is simply a tool of the left. It is the left that is doing enormous harm to the country, wielding every possible implement to do so, the media being but one instrument thereof.

*

1) Trump bullies South Korea for military funding, yet it's a free ally which actually carries it fair share of the defense burden.
2) Trump bends an older law to impose tariffs on allies who were abiding by tariff treaties the US willingly signed.
3) He wants to build a "beautiful wall" which clearly can't solve the problem it addresses.
The list would go on into the hundreds.

Don't get me wrong, while I despise him, I readily acknowledge he's done many good things as president. Normally I'd vote third party to avoid voting for him, but with the press having gone off the deep end, I may change my mind. The final decision will be made after the Dem's choose their VP candidate, since I have to wonder in listening to Biden if he can serve 4 years.

*

These outfits are businesses, and their product is "Hate Trump". They package it well, and sell it 24/7 with smooth slick salesmen. Their addicted audience gets their daily fix, and the money pours in from ads, clicks, and subscriptions. CNNs boss is on record as saying, skip the news and concentrate on Trump. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and their business model is an outstanding success. Forger morals, ethics, honesty -- all that stuff. Con men have known for years that those things don't pay.

*

AI:
Everyone here is complaining about riots and looting and monuments being torn down but NOT ONE is saying anything about or against the Racism that started it all. From the Systemic racism to the racism in Police Brutality to racism in lending, housing, and education and even just in shopping, walking, or bird watching...Not one Peep about that. And you wonder why the US is on Fire.

FS
Mr Floyd was murdered - I don't know if the Officer killed him bc of race or just wanted to kill someone. However, I reject the notion of Systemic Racism so try again. Why didn't Schumer let Sen Scott's bill come to the floor?

AI
u reject Systemic Racism? really? do u even know what it is? It is all around you man, open ur eyes, read a book, do some research. That's like saying Racism doesnt exist at all. Really? incredibly ignorant statement!

FS
I was raised to judge based on the Content of the Character not Color of the Skin so it isn't all around me. Some may judge me on my skin tone - that's their issue. When I look at the totality of US History from 1700's - 2020 on balance I think we've been a great good for the World.

RU
So Al, are you saying that Obama's eight years as president were a total failure? Are you saying that generations of Democrat leadership allowed this racism?
Trump has been president for just over three years and this systemic racism just began in January 2017?
Or maybe you're referring to the Southern states when they were controlled by Democrats. They passed the Jim Crow laws, prevented blacks from voting and Democrats like Robert Byrd were recruiting KKK members.
Is that the systemic racism you're referring too?

AI
NEver said any of that And I never blamed Trump for the racism (show me where I did). The south has been GOP since the 60s man...and they turned after the 1964 Civil Right act because they didnt believe in equal rights for Black Americans ;this is basic US history. People of all colors now are tired of the racism and they are acting...

FS
Who helped Johnson pass the Civil Rights Act? It wasn't Dems. How do you account for Obama's Election and Re-Election in a Country with, as you believe, "systemic racism"?

[Wellesnet]

The left attribute noble motives to even the most egregious behavior (looting and burning) in the name of signaling their virtue. In short, they are mind readers - and bad ones at that.

*

No Trump fan here. The WaPo, however, is a trash agit-prop rag. I subscribed last year, hoping to inform myself more fully. I was amazed and chagrined at the drivel, lies, propaganda and misdirection.

I'm a registered independent and I'm no fan of the President. But I heard the speech. It was standard July 4 pro America wording , with a side dish of reality based commentary on the urban chaos and destruction that no one on the left dares mention. I found it mostly unifying.
So when I read the coverage of it in the "mainstream media", I felt as if I lived in an alternate universe. I even went to find his words online, b/c I thought perhaps I had missed parts.
To pretend they did not deliberately twist his words & misquote him is to do mental gymnastics beyond me. This bias harms America.
This bias and the way the Democrats have used dark hyperbole is deeply disturbing & unfair to me. Just Pelosi's lies & vitriol about Sen Scott's police reform bill were so morally indefensible, that they sickened me.
Anyhow, if the Democrats cannot clearly decry the insanity & suffering that is happening in our cities, this independent will vote against all of them and the urban chaos and destruction that no one on the left dares mention.

*

I believe Biden's remarks were [sic] 'Elect me and I will eliminate the systemic racism that has existed since Americans birth.'
“We have a chance now to give the marginalized, the demonized, the isolated [and] the oppressed a full share of the American Dream,” Biden said in his video. “We have a chance to rip the roots of systemic racism out of this country. We have a chance to live up to the words that have founded this nation.”
Not only does he side with but he panders to. I truly cannot see that selling.

*

I attended a conference in 2017 where one of the keynote speakers was Jeremy Gilbert, WaPo's Innovation Director.
He shared a story about one of his first meetings with Jeff Bezos and various leaders in the WaPo newsroom. Editors were debating over which stories to cover, how to present them, what resources could be used to enhance presentation, etc. The primary debate was over stories considered "important" vs. stories that are "interesting." "Important" stories being topics like politics, the economy, world affairs, etc. "Interesting" stories were human interest pieces, entertainment, lifestyle, etc.
Bezos had been quiet but addressed Mr. Gilbert and said: "It's your job is to make the 'important' [news] 'interesting.'" Then the meeting ended.
It was that moment when I realized "news" is not about informing people so they can make their own decisions. It's about making "news" interesting to increase engagement - aka revenue.
Journalistic integrity was not mentioned once.


Absolutely agree. Years ago I served on the citizen advisory committee of a medium size newspaper. I would point out technical errors in the published edition and make suggestions about news stories to cover. Management was using the group to find a hook to a story or suggest topics and looking for emotional buy in. That was what they wanted from us.

*

Thanks to the op-ed author for an interesting perspective about honesty in the press.
My experience in trying to make my way through the myriad societal issues and concerns, based on the topics covered by WaPo and WSJ, is the vast disparity of content and lack of concurrence of any concept. WaPo, in its crazed abhorrence of this president, talks about almost nothing else. Yet there are very credible (even conservative) writers for the Post, who are reliable in their reporting and whose opinions are valuable. Usually, I'll read one article in the Post, then switch to the WSJ, to try to get a balance in the reporting. The WSJ bias is most obvious in what it doesn't say. WSJ avoids the complexities of current reality [to mask or not; antifa v police; global relationships] by saying nothing at all that could be construed as difference of opinion with or criticism of the president. Presumably, this is also driven by editorial inclinations.

*

The WSJ has had several pieces on masks and antifa and on police conduct/misconduct, the role of police unions, and the statistics behind racial discrimination in policing, etc.
These have each been covered more than once, just in the past 6 weeks.

The WSJ "news" reporters are quite often to the left of the Wash Po's, IMHO.

In 2008, on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama visited it for an event.
CNN said: “Obama arrived there late last night and got a good look around Mount Rushmore — it’s quite a sight if you haven’t seen it,” said CNN anchor Rob Marciano.
“Barack Obama is in South Dakota today. He arrived there last night. Take a look at this. He got a good glimpse of the majestic Mount Rushmore,” fellow CNN anchor Betty Nguyen said later in the same broadcast.
A few days later, CNN’s Jim Acosta described Obama’s visit to Mount Rushmore like this: “It’s a fitting campaign stop for a presidential contender looking to make history. Standing before Mount Rushmore over the weekend, Barack Obama was asked whether he sees his face joining the likes of Washington and Lincoln.”
CNN, 2020, sees two slave owners in the same monument they praised in May of 2008.

*

A sad commentary on the state of our "Free Press". It was their responsibility to recognize their Bias. Trump will win the election because of these petulant rants and lies. It needs to happen to restore honesty to our national media. People are entitled to the truth even when it is unpleasant!

*

"In its own account, though hardly friendly to Mr. Trump, the New York Times went out of its way to counter these rampant distortions, reporting that Mr. Trump “avoided references . . . to the symbols of the Confederacy that have been a target of many protests.”"

Yet, everyone who heard or read his speech knows he was defending monuments to the Confederate States of America.
"Fine people on both sides" redux.

Bruce,
READ the actual TRANSCRIPT of the Charlottesville remarks, where Mr. Trump CONDEMNS the racists on both sides.

So, why did the president take out time to tweet about Bubba Wallace two days ago, or Nascar's ban on the Confederate Flag, or the Washington Redskins changing their names, or the Cleveland Indians change their name, or take time out to tweet about football players kneeling? He's a racist and he's saying those things to whip up his racist followers.
Why don't you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about and that you were quoting a transcript of the wrong speech when you called Jenkins a liar?

*

Mr. Wallace, on the Kimmel show, made the false claim that the incident was racist, despite the investigation.
As to the Washington Redskins name changing, it should as it represents a LIE. That team has not played a game in Washington for many years now, they need to disassociate their team from that swamp. The Landover Redskins has a nice ring to it.
As to the knee, the one taken by Colin was a slap to the military and to the US. It was done at the start of a game that was to honor the US MILITARY.

[Wellesnet]

In a piece about press being disingenuous about the President's speech, I'm disappointed in the narrow view of this opinion piece which is no better than the press it accuses of the same.

This piece makes no effort to defend the President's words that demonstrates the very same divisive rhetoric that Jenkins claims to dispute. This puts Jenkins in the same camp as those they claim to deride.

See the rest of the speech:

"Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our Founders"
"They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive."
"Make no mistake: this left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution."
"In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance."

Jenkins, you're not helping.

And those quotes from Trump bother you why?

Perhaps you should write your own editorial. Clearly the piece focus on the press not reporting facts. Perhaps you should visit the Huffpost, MSNBC, Salon, Atlantic, etc, etc to read pieces that are more in line with what you would like authors to compose.

Personally, I think a press that clearly distorts the truth puts the very notion of the freedom of the press at risk. That is a problem that far exceeds any mischief that Trump can concoct. Worst case, Trump will be gone in 4 years. What's more, there is a congress and a judiciary that can and does significantly thwart Trumps policy goals. What institution exists to mitigate the impact of a dishonest press.?

A dishonest press has the potential to undo a culture. Trump can only dream about having such wide ranging influence.

“Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children”

-This quote is from Trump's speech at Mount Rushmore. You could infer that he's referring only to the Founding Fathers, or you could infer that he's including all of the statues, memorials and namesakes from the Confederacy that have been struck down in recent weeks.

You can accuse the Post of inferring, sure. Outright lying though? I think this journalist is equally guilty of inferring.

The Post story is a NEWS story. This is an opinion article. Completely different standards.

Brennan,
Whether you agree or not, those statues and monuments are part of our history.
Whether they remain on public view or get taken down is a public decision, after public debate. It is not a decision properly allocated to a mob.

I could not agree with you more. I have never cared enough to read four newspapers a day and follow another half dozen media outlets. And scour for original source material to make determinations myself. But Covid changed all of that. And any critical thinker can clearly see what a travesty mainstream media news has become. It’s flagrantly dishonest spin cycling. And I am saying this as a moderate liberal. Fox hasn’t done much better, mind you. It’s not just a liberal problem. It’s a wholesale media problem. And I must say that the only place I have been getting good news that actually reflects the original source material is the WSJ. And I never used to read the WSJ before except maybe on an airplane when they handed me the paper. I am now a permanent WSJ fan.

This editorial links to a transcript of Trump's speech that doesn't contain all of the words, including some of the most offensive, that he said. That's honest?
Jenkins has no sense of irony at all: when it comes to lies, nobody beats the editorial board of the WSJ, except Trump, of course.


The WP has compiled a list of 20,000 lies that Trump has told, but Jenkins ignores that and instead claims it is really the press that lies.
Jenkins, Strassel, McGurn and most of the others are simply extensions of the Trump campaign and embarrassments to the journalistic profession.

So you cite not a single example of a 'lie' here? And your post does not address the content of this article, which is very specific?
You need new glasses.

Are you serious? You don't think the president lies? He lies all of the time. As for the WSJ lying, they printed an editorial above that has a link to the White House's transcript of the speech that doesn't include all of the words that the president spoke. How can a paper criticize other papers for not printing the truth about what was said at a speech and use as proof a transcript of the speech that doesn't include all of the words spoken? The WSJ and Jenkins are lying to you when they link to a transcript of a speech that doesn't include all of the words of the speech in a column complaining about people not accurately reporting what was said in the speech.


"You can keep your doctor."
"You can keep your insurance."
"YouTube killed Chris Stevens."
The first two lies have cost me tens of thousands in health care premiums for insurance selected for me by a community organizer, insurance I don't want or need.
The third lie was an attempt by Obama to cover up the deaths of four Americans caused by his administration's incompetence.
Let me know when you get to a Trump lie that costs me enough money to buy a very nice new car or one intended to cover up deaths caused by his gross incompetence.

How does 130,000 deaths due to incompetence grab you?

What does Cuomo's incompetence have to do with Trump?