The left has increasingly relied on gaslighting the past few years in order to try to convince people that what they can see for themselves just isn't real. Whether its mostly peaceful protests to a sputtering economy beset by skyrocketing inflation is really a robust heathy economy, it is just one after another.
But there is one that I really didn't think they would even try. That they knew this one jumped the shark. And that is that old Joe is facing a much tougher time from the MSM than Trump did.
It is actually SOP for Democrats to do this. In spite of their circling the wagons around every Democrat president to protect him through spiking negative stories, repeating their spin verbatim as fact, and even bareface lying, they claimed they were rougher on Clinton and Obama than they were on Reagan or Bush. Only someone living under a rock would believe such nonsense as even the most cursory of examinations would immediately reveal that is not the case.
But after what they did to Trump for over 4 years to now come out and declare they treated him better than they do old Joe the only suitable response is a spit take. But, nevertheless, that is exactly what is taking place.
For instance, Dana Milbank, national political columnist for the Washington Post claims that he entered news stories into a computer and it determined that the press were having a love affair with Trump compared to all the vitriol they've been directing to lovable old Joe. Apparently he uses a computer program to measure the "tone" of adjectives in 200,000 articles to come to this conclusion. Of course negative adjectives could be used in these articles to be describing conservative opposition but let's not worry about details.
But then Milbank lets the cat out of the bag when he starts likening any criticism of the demented duffer to "serving as accessories to the murder of democracy" followed by proclaiming that "We need a skeptical, independent press. But how about being partisans for democracy? ... Too many journalists are caught in a mindless neutrality between democracy and its saboteurs, between fact and fiction. It’s time to take a stand."
Milbank is try to get his fellow travelers to join him in being an openly partisan hack. To stop pointing out old Joe's stunning ineptitude and incompetence because that is "serving as accessories to the murder of democracy"
Mr. Potato Head on CNN (a.k.a., Brian Stelter) picked up on this GIGO-based analysis yesterday and along with guest Eric Boehlert, a former writer for Salon and Rolling Stone, proclaiming how this was "long overdue" and scolding their fellow travelers to engage in some "self-reflection."
Needless to say old Joe's Chief of Staff quickly jumped on this
Interestingly, there actually have been several in-depth analysis of media coverage of Trump. During the "honeymoon" period of his first three months in office 89% of news reports were negative. In comparison, only 41% were negative for old Joe. And after that, between 2017 and 2021, the coverage of Trump averaged between 90 to 92% negative.
Is Milbank, Stelter et al., seriously suggesting that old Joe has been facing 90 to 92% negative coverage? I mean, given how old Joe has FUBARed everything he's done since in office, whether it's the economy, the border, Afghanistan, etc., he deserves 90-92% negative coverage but is anyone seriously suggesting that he got anywhere close to that much less even worse?
Biden took some serious well-deserved criticism after the debacle he created in Afghanistan (which he still insists was an "outstanding success") for a week or two but the MSM quickly put their muzzles back on and resumed their role of quiet lap dogs.
To pretend that old Joe gets worse than Trump's 90-92% negative reporting is so over the top to be beyond ridiculous.
But there is one that I really didn't think they would even try. That they knew this one jumped the shark. And that is that old Joe is facing a much tougher time from the MSM than Trump did.
It is actually SOP for Democrats to do this. In spite of their circling the wagons around every Democrat president to protect him through spiking negative stories, repeating their spin verbatim as fact, and even bareface lying, they claimed they were rougher on Clinton and Obama than they were on Reagan or Bush. Only someone living under a rock would believe such nonsense as even the most cursory of examinations would immediately reveal that is not the case.
But after what they did to Trump for over 4 years to now come out and declare they treated him better than they do old Joe the only suitable response is a spit take. But, nevertheless, that is exactly what is taking place.
For instance, Dana Milbank, national political columnist for the Washington Post claims that he entered news stories into a computer and it determined that the press were having a love affair with Trump compared to all the vitriol they've been directing to lovable old Joe. Apparently he uses a computer program to measure the "tone" of adjectives in 200,000 articles to come to this conclusion. Of course negative adjectives could be used in these articles to be describing conservative opposition but let's not worry about details.
But then Milbank lets the cat out of the bag when he starts likening any criticism of the demented duffer to "serving as accessories to the murder of democracy" followed by proclaiming that "We need a skeptical, independent press. But how about being partisans for democracy? ... Too many journalists are caught in a mindless neutrality between democracy and its saboteurs, between fact and fiction. It’s time to take a stand."
Milbank is try to get his fellow travelers to join him in being an openly partisan hack. To stop pointing out old Joe's stunning ineptitude and incompetence because that is "serving as accessories to the murder of democracy"
Mr. Potato Head on CNN (a.k.a., Brian Stelter) picked up on this GIGO-based analysis yesterday and along with guest Eric Boehlert, a former writer for Salon and Rolling Stone, proclaiming how this was "long overdue" and scolding their fellow travelers to engage in some "self-reflection."
Needless to say old Joe's Chief of Staff quickly jumped on this
Interestingly, there actually have been several in-depth analysis of media coverage of Trump. During the "honeymoon" period of his first three months in office 89% of news reports were negative. In comparison, only 41% were negative for old Joe. And after that, between 2017 and 2021, the coverage of Trump averaged between 90 to 92% negative.
Is Milbank, Stelter et al., seriously suggesting that old Joe has been facing 90 to 92% negative coverage? I mean, given how old Joe has FUBARed everything he's done since in office, whether it's the economy, the border, Afghanistan, etc., he deserves 90-92% negative coverage but is anyone seriously suggesting that he got anywhere close to that much less even worse?
Biden took some serious well-deserved criticism after the debacle he created in Afghanistan (which he still insists was an "outstanding success") for a week or two but the MSM quickly put their muzzles back on and resumed their role of quiet lap dogs.
To pretend that old Joe gets worse than Trump's 90-92% negative reporting is so over the top to be beyond ridiculous.
Comment