The Media Hates Trump and They Will Never Relent

The Media Hates Trump and They Will Never Relent

Newly elected presidents are frequently afforded what is described as a “honeymoon period” in which the criticism of their campaign positions diminishes sharply as the public and media stand by to see what actually will develop as an administration takes shape. The honeymoon can sometimes extend well into the post-inauguration time frame, as it did with President Barack Obama, and it provides for a breathing space during which the new arrivals in the White House can set an agenda and learn how the government actually works.

Unfortunately, President-elect Donald Trump will apparently not enjoy such a courtesy, at least as far as the media is concerned. The mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile to Trump both during the Republican primaries and the presidential campaign itself. The assertions emanating from media apologists contending that Trump actually benefitted from the massive press coverage that he did receive ignores the fact that the reporting was almost always negative. If Trump benefited at all it was only because the public, seeing the outpouring of sheer hatred from a media that it already distrusted, came to believe that someone so vilified by a source so questionable must actually represent something worth supporting.

The rage of the media towards Trump continues unabated. The Washington Post, a scurrilous rag emanating out of the District of Columbia that claims to be a national “newspaper of record,” has a neocon editorial page that has never seen a war that it dislikes coupled with domestic and local reporting that is multicultural, inclusive and diverse to a fault. Its globalist agenda driven hacks seamlessly churn out news stories that are more editorials for a certain world view than they are reporting of actual events. It is “invade the world-invite the world” at its finest and reminds one of Hillary Clinton at her most effusive.

The Post’s November 16th print edition was remarkable even by the paper’s lax journalistic standards, suggesting that it would be well served by renaming itself The Anti-Trump. Here are the stories featured in the paper on that day either about Trump himself, his transition team, or about policies that Trump is believed to be promoting:

  • Lead headline, “Key figures purged from Trump team.”
  • Lead Editorial” “Mr. Putin’s green light for atrocities: Mr. Obama will not act in Syria to stop Russia or the Assad regime, and Mr. Trump seems indifferent at best”
  • Second Editorial” “Show us your papers Mr. Trump”
  • Article “How Bannon coaxed Trump in alt-right shift”
  • Article “A rallying cry for Democrats: Resist”
  • Article “Police chief: Los Angeles won’t aid Trump deportation efforts”
  • Article “Think tank highlights Russian threat”
  • Article “Anti-Defamation League decries Bannon’s ascent”
  • Article “Parents of transgender children speak out in an effort to empower others”
  • Article “Elite schools urged to aid undocumented students”
  • Article “In rejecting the blind trust tradition, Trump follows another model: Ukraine”
  • Article “In Middle east, a new uncertainty after Obama”
  • Article “Europeans urge Trump to be cautious on Putin”
  • Article “Obama warns of ‘crude sort of nationalism’”
  • Article “Why Mexico has a lot to lose in a Trump trade war”
  • Article “Trump’s election does not bode well for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”
  • Article “The faulty logic behind Trump’s plan to freeze federal hiring”
  • Article “Ginsburg utters: ‘President Trump’: Justice who had voiced distaste for Republican bites her tongue”
  • Article “Election outcome protested in District”
  • Opinion “For my dad and uncle, Trump is no step forward: the election of Obama gave them hope. Now they have Trump”
  • Article “’Sanctuaries’ stand firm amid threat”
  • Article “Council floats plan to cut back on Trump’s parade”
  • Op-ed “America’s Bannon litmus test”
  • Op-ed “Trump must disavow the alt-right”
  • Op-ed “With Russia, deterrence before détente”
  • Op-ed “The Fed clash to come?”
  • Letter to editor: In an attack on those who voted for Trump, “When you knowingly put a racist person with seemingly fascist tendencies in the White House, it can give the impression that you sympathize.”
  • Letter to editor: “…with the selection of Mr. Ebell [a critic of climate change as EPA transition team head] that promise [to drain the Washington swamp] appears to have been a lie. Rather than draining the swamp, the president-elect is already swimming in it.”
  • Metro section review of the Capitol dome restoration: “Revived symbol for worried nation”
  • Style section “Questions of faith: She had always believed hers was a country that, ultimately, chose good. What now?”
  • Style section “Never say #Never? These conservatives said they couldn’t tolerate Trump. Then he won”
  • Style section “Sykes says she got the last laugh on hecklers [a comedian who was booed in Boston when she made a series of jokes about Trump]”

This constitutes just one day’s coverage in only one paper of the World of Trump. I am pleased to report that there were no negative stories about Donald in either the Sports or Food sections, though I might have missed them, and I later noted that there were a couple of more negative pieces in the online version of the paper. The New York Timesonline on the same day was not so vitriolic, and a bit more restrained in its language, but it had seven featured articles, one editorial and four op-eds all critical of Trump, his policies, or his transition process. One op-ed was entitled “Bullying in the age of Trump.”

Continue Reading/UNZ Review>>>

Sharing is caring!

Author Image

Unz Review

For decades I have spent a couple of hours every morning carefully reading The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and several other major newspapers. But although such a detailed study of the American mainstream media is a necessary condition for remaining informed about our world, it is not sufficient. With the rise of the Internet and the alternative media, every thinking individual has increasingly recognized that there exist enormous lacunae in what our media tells us and disturbing patterns in what is regularly ignored or concealed. In April 2013 I published “Our American Pravda,” a major article highlighting some of the most disturbing omissions of our national media in issues of the greatest national importance. The considerable attention it attracted from The Atlantic, Forbes, and a New York Times economics columnist demonstrated that the mainstream journalists themselves were often all too aware of these problems, but perhaps found them too difficult to address within the confining structure of large media organizations. This reinforced my belief in the reality of the serious condition I had diagnosed.