The intent is so evil and so bad
Trump yesterday told Breitbart that the New York Times is evil.
Well he would, wouldn’t he. It’s like Hitler and Mussolini getting together to agree that Roosevelt is evil. It’s like Dylann Roof and Elliott Rodger calling their victims evil.
President Donald Trump lashed out at The New York Times on Monday, claiming it reports with “evil” intentions and publishes lies.
“If you read the New York Times, it’s — the intent is so evil and so bad,” the president told Breitbart News in an interview Monday. “The stories are wrong in many cases, but it’s the overall intent.”
I wonder what Trump’s intent is in constantly demonizing the press.
While Trump largely focused his fire on a familiar foe in The New York Times, he also blasted what he called “fake media” at large.
“There’s a difference,” the president said. “The fake media is the opposition party. The fake media is the enemy of the American people. There’s tremendous fake media out there. Tremendous fake stories. The problem is the people that aren’t involved in the story don’t know that.”
Trump didn’t identify what differentiates real media from fake media — he frequently highlights organizations and stories that are either critical of him or that he disagrees with as fake news — but White House aide Hope Hicks agreed with her boss. “Just the fact that they didn’t report that accurately proves your point,” she said during the interview, adding that reporters simply said the press, not fake news media, was the enemy of the American people, as he tweeted last week.
But it’s her boss who calls major mainstream news outlets “fake,” and doing that does pretty much amount to saying that the (mainstream) news media in general are fake. If he’s calling the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN “fake” then he’s broadly hinting that all media outlets are fake except the ones that fawn on him. So yes: he is busily engaged in demonizing the press in general, except for the extreme right-wing press such as Breitbart and Fox.
May this improve their circulation.
I think it is. I saw a headline the other day that the Washington Post’s circulation is way up, and I would guess that applies to the Times as well.
I know I resubscribed to both, fairly recently. Had let them lapse a while, before. Partly getting more comfortable with the technology (online editions), figuring it’s mature enough. Partly: yeah, my assessment is they are so badly needed, now.
Adding: I really can’t help comparing him to cult leaders. Maybe partly my obsession, but really: demonization of ‘corrupt’ outside influences to isolate and control the faithful, all this talk of ‘evil’… Just really reminiscent, to me.
… also (I’m on the run with too damned little time to compose something more organized right now; apologies for telegraphic blurbs) it’s kinda funny he should mention intent. Because sure, I think that’s a critical difference, all right… And if (big if) there were a way to see this even from within immersion in the sources he favours this would be incredibly useful… But yeah, no time right now. Difference between imperfect institutions with variable and known weaknesses still after reality, facts in context, and those far less concerned even with assembling an even cohesive cosmology as finding their marks’ buttons… And anyway, yeah, longer essay definitely.
NYT indeed saw a huge increase in subscriptions since the election. This article says tenfold.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/11/29/new-york-times-subscriptions-soar-tenfold-after-donald-trump-wins-presidency.html
But but but but the “failing” New York Times!
All the new subscribers are losers for sure, so yes, the Times is failing. Sad!
New sub to wapo here! Not enough time to read all, but a little bit of giddyup, guys! They do have a history to claim and defend.
Actually, I’m sure the reports of the new subscriptions is “fake news”, designed to make Trump look bad.
Or, those subscribers subscribed illegally, and their subscriptions shouldn’t be counted. Bigly.
Another new sub to wapo. And NYT and a bunch of others all at once. Even Vanity Fair, not my usual material, but some good general articles, and hey, great discount they were offering. I drew the line at Teen Vogue, despite the amazing job they have been doing in political writing. It sounds like subscriptions are up all over. Good!
@ Sackbut
Surely you mean “Not Sad!” I mean, we want to make sure Donnie can interpret your meaning.
Of course I should have said beautiful or bigly or some other mango lingo. Forgive me. I suspect I’m on his list anyway.
I’d commented elsewhere I should probably respond, any time someone uses the construction ‘the failing New York Times’:
‘Ah. Yes. Them. I’m a failing subscriber.’
I’m now thinking if they made a t-shirt with ‘failing subscriber’, with a nice little black letter Times-T on it, I might just wear that. And I’m not much for t-shirts, generally.
Has everyone noticed the Washington Post’s new slogan?
“Democracy dies in darkness.”
Ah no, I hadn’t.