“…You’re giving us no choice. We gotta go to the federal level. We gotta vote for Donald J. Trump, because he’s made it clear what he’s gonna do…
Democracy has finally killed itself, by voting. You tried to warn us.
The dreaded authoritarian takeover that fairly won all seven swing states, and the popular vote, was ensured by a silent bloc of classical liberals and informed green voters, but I haven’t seen any analysis of this fusion of tribes in your writings, news and views shows, or even as a topic to discuss on any mainstream outlets’ panels.
When my voter demographic joined Trump’s MAGA movement (under Robert Kennedy Jr.’s quick branding of a MAHA cousin movement) I wondered if it was the most clever election maneuver in American history. I felt admiration for the concern it displayed for this place we live, above ego, ideology, or tribe.
It certainly was one of history’s greatest upsets. With some help in Wisconsin from the man who paid a king’s ransom to resurrect Twitter’s democratic purpose, RFK Jr. clinched the win for Donald Trump. Kennedy knew his supporters’ concerns and made the determination that he should direct them to support someone who might really listen, might really act, and doesn’t show signs of ulterior commitments.
It was a patriotic decision, which is maybe why it strikes me as so rare and remarkable. Review your last dozen pieces. Are their concerns with Trump’s bombast and seeming carelessness, the dangers of online speech, climate change, the Science, the Safety, illegal migrants’ housing conditions, or bigotry? What’s missing?
I’d forgotten what leaders look like in government. Suddenly I was watching a long abandoned promise made good: the political union of the Tea Party and Occupy movements, stymied fifteen years ago by the clever injection of identity politics.
Kennedy’s decision to join the revolution—and a revolution it must be—should have been cause and fuel enough for at least a dozen panel discussions on established news channels. It should have been the focus of several magazine features, the topic of twenty to a hundred op-eds:
You could have interviewed former Occupy organizers; listed the commonalities between Tea Party types and hippiest treehuggers, politically and psychologically; or even attempted to link Luigi Mangione’s desperate act of health care terrorism to the rise of a new cross-party health consciousness; or… something.
Here’s my favorite Christmas message ever. As you’ve probably heard, the man who just took the Oval Office suggested the U.S. may seize control of three other states: Canada, Greenland, and Panama—or at least Panama’s precious tradeway, the Canal.
Suggesting Canada’s annexation is an obvious shot at Trudeau, but my people—the misinformed podcast listeners and independent journal readers who are anti-science, too ignorant to trust promoted experts, we who flirt dangerously with conspiracy theories—suspect Trump’s dig at our captured northern neighbor was a longer shot: at the World Economic Forum, and at forces eroding Western nations’ sovereignty in general.
(And I just noticed this heat on X: Canadians agree… Well, “my people” in Canada do.)
(… and my people in Ireland, and their people in the England… Imagine them agreeing.)
But I scarcely hear about these forces from you, not even about the World Economic Forum, whose figurehead would “penetrate” Canada’s cabinet and then brag about it.
Greenland’s mention seemed a sincere statement of intent: the U.S. ought to be more heavily involved in that island, for its own interests…
And it could also be shot at the WEF, given the advocacy that Greenland’s owner—the Danish king—does on behalf of that self-anointed supranational political body.
But I’ll never know, because you aren’t interested enough to look into it for me. Instead, as always, more fearmongering about the tyrant who wants humans to be able to speak and to defend themselves without punishment.
(Notice the repeated misuse of the word “livelihood” in the video I just linked to—here’s that link again, because it’s worth the quick watch. Insultingly ironic because it has been us outside the cult ye disinformation experts shepherd who risk losing our livelihoods for straying from the flock.
But it is further worrying how telling that expert interview is of the quality of Yale’s education, and of how fully captured the field of psychology is now, and of how hostile Ivy League students have become to American values and liberal principles. Those are grad students I just linked to a video of. Notice what they are protesting. Speech itself: two women of differing views debating. For many who came to hear.)
It’s too dangerous to let us solve problems the way we have since symbolic sound, to let us associate freely without punishing us for our associations, to let us discuss freely the important things. The important things are too much for us. We can’t even handle the holidays with our own families, according to your experts, so dangerously dangerous are people who would vote for the dangerous man.
That’s how you look out for the nation, ye who must have schooling now to be a journalist, once completely unnecessary for American gumshoes; ye whose downtown rents must be paid for during your long internships in expensive cities.
For some reason, you assume everyone else is vulnerable to lies, and incapable of detecting them; everyone else should let things be taken care of for them, without all that consideration and decision we aren’t qualified for.
"Dialogue" by Santana Miyazaki
So you must shepherd us away. It’s really for our own health. The lady who doesn’t know what “livelihood” means said so. Besides, how could someone ever survive a whole Christmas dinner with Uncle Every Other Country Has Borders, and Cousin Do Your Own Research? You certainly couldn’t, and you live in New York.
Newsweek editors let be published an op-ed concerned with the international diplomatic cost of an aggressive takeover of Greenland. Its first paragraph calls Trump’s announced intention to acquire the island “strategically misguided” and mentions “Greenland's hard-fought autonomy from Denmark, achieved in 2009…”
Then (after the lookouts holler “look out!”) comes the following paragraph. Ready?
While it remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland exercises substantial autonomy over its domestic affairs, with Copenhagen [the Danish capital] retaining control over foreign policy and defense.
Hackery. First you slushspeak the terms “autonomy” and “substantial autonomy” together, like either there’s no qualitative difference between them or I won’t notice, then you blithely mention that a foreign capital is in charge of the country’s foreign policy and national defense, as if such doesn’t define Greenland as non-sovereign.
Denmark’s capital also controls Greenland’s foreign trade, by the way. Not that any of you told me that. I did my own research. Because I have to. Not because I want to.
(To be fair, some more genuine journalists at Newsweek published an excellent assembly of the range of reactions among the Greenlandic.)
Regarding Panama, Newsweek issued a fact check of Trump’s implication that China has undue influence over the Canal. Ruling: False. Here’s their verdict’s summary:
“While a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings manages two ports at the canal's entrances, with Chinese firms funding construction of a new bridge over the canal to the tune of over $1 billion, this does not equate to control of the canal's operations. The Panama Canal Authority, an autonomous government agency, oversees the canal's administration.”
Dissembly. Of course the (ironically immediately concerning) amount of presence and infrastructural investment you report China has in the Panama Canal “does not equate to” control. Your kind often do this: stop where the question begins, creating false equivalencies as silly as they are illogical and then acting like someone else made that connection.
Did Trump say that Chinese managing ports and spending on a new bridge in the Western Hemisphere’s most vital sea lane by itself comprises control? No. And we already know that Panama is supposed to “administer” its canal, so while true that part of the paragraph was also platitudinal. Thanks for literally nothing.
I was hoping you could elaborate on what signs of Chinese influence there might be, then shed some light on how Trump may be interpreting, or misinterpreting, those signs as commie encroachment. Anyone? I’ll pay for a subscription.
Could China be exerting gradually, perniciously increasing influence in this remote country no media even keeps an eye on? Are they already practically enveloping the Canal, and therefore require constant consultation for decisions Panama makes about many things, establishing for themselves de facto control? Have there been bribes?
Or am I to assume with you that Trump is just making stuff up again? How’s your record been, with those assumptions?
Why does my audience know Japan and South Korea (the two nations other than China and the U.S. that rely on trade thru the Panama Canal) are almost certainly in quiet support of Trump’s declaration, and also are worried about China’s influence?
Why weren’t you instantly curious what those two countries think? You usually value very much what other countries think about Trump’s statements. In this case, it’s Journalism 101: approach other stakeholders for comment. Forget to?
All of you?
Have you at least noticed that those two nations haven’t voiced any opposition to Trump’s bellicosity. (I bet you’d find that.) What then is your real job? What’s always apparent, to us, is a prime directive in your work to convince readers and viewers that Trump is “provoking” unnecessary conflicts, that he is the force “dividing” us, and that his actions are “irresponsible” and contrary to the interests of Americans, or to the compassionate character of America. It’s as predictable as it is tired as it is nauseating.
But here’s the problem: living beings still have to be anticipate future conditions, to maximize their chances of survival and achieve conditions in which they can thrive. We advanced lifeforms are very good at doing that, given accurate information. And so we still look, to you!
From the runup to the Iraq War to the false claims made about every recommended step in the mRNA vax promotional effort, you decreased American’s predictive capacity. (While setting us against each other. Dividing us, one might say.)
I find it poetically appropriate that Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass recently displayed what tragedies happen when leaders fail to use the predictive capacity they should have gained from available information (there aren’t enough firefighters; there are broken and dry hydrants; a 150 million-gallon reservoir is emptied; the fire department is warning there isn’t enough budget; it hasn’t rained; the Santa Ana winds are coming) and you weren’t even there to grill her about it.
Do you not make the connection between making good decisions and having accurate information, or do you just identify with her innocence?
It was an Australian journalist who found time to ask the returning mayor of LA why she was gallavanting to Ghana during warnings of extreme fire risk, just before annual winds came that could turn any housefire into a holocaust, after pushing competent firefighting staff out of their jobs and slashing $17+ million from a budget crucial to preventing the dispossessed thousands and dead dozens of her city’s citizens.
Why weren’t you there? What were you doing that was more important, LA citizen? You live in Los Angeles. You knew the fire department had been complaining for years of being underfunded. You knew the Santa Ana winds were coming. But you don’t want to ask the person in charge of your city why she didn’t militate against disaster.
The man who will prove to be our most important health secretary ever, after being called a conspiracy theorist for saying a certain red dye causes cancer until it was proven cause cancer, and after being called a conspiracy theorist for saying mRNA shots would neither prevent infection nor transmission until you quietly admittedly in soft slushspeak that they kinda none of ‘em really sorta don’t prevent like either, and after being criticized by you for “attacking” (criticizing) former CDC director Robert Redfield, recently claimed that Redfield told him he was “right about everything.”
Redfield has not denied the comment. Surely the Arunachala-sized iceberg this reveals has been the focus of what you broadcast to your audience about Kennedy. Surely the Science’s top lead expert authority’s confirmation of everything conspiracy theorist RFK Jr. claimed about our covid mismanagment must have stopped your presses.
Because you believe in science.
Summarize for me the scientific method. Takes ten seconds.
Let me try to learn, from the people meant to be eyes and ears beyond our own, more about this widely respected man. Here we go. Ready? Here’s what I learned:
His own family disagrees with him on vaccines! Sad. Also at age fifteen, when he had seen his uncle and then his father get shot in the head, he used drugs. And he wrote a global bestseller that we shouldn’t even watch the free documentary video version of because it’s all crazy lies and that’s why no one he accused in it has denied his accusations or sued him. And he talks funny, never mind why.
Brainworms too.
"This is America. You bring these people over here that’s [who are] from socialist countries… and y’all think y’all [are] gonna run that here…
So I’m quoting this black adult female from Chicago thru this letter—the kind who has been speaking out in every city council meeting about the sovereignty-subverting design what done brang us [that has brought us] millions of illegal migrants. To my surprise, the words being spoken by civilians in public meetings in Chicago’s black neighborhoods best elucidate the ongoing pattern of government disregard for Americans.
Black, audibly not college-educated, MAGA hat–wearing Jessica Jackson has come to the same conclusions I have about the mysteriously aligned directions of all the disrespectful new trends in our country—the expertise cottage industries we suddenly need, the suddenly well funded social awareness movements, and people’s sudden aversion to discussing anything important in shared spaces, as in China.
Because, dear would-be journalist, she values something you very clearly do not.
Why did our Federal Aviation Agency, federal law agencies, and intelligence agencies all collude to keep information from us they had about the large drones flying over our cities, for weeks? That must not be important, because it isn’t in the news.
Why isn’t the panoply of interweaving failures and novices put in charge of the Secret Service’s protection at Trump’s speech in Virginia the top item of investigation? An American president was shot, during a candidacy saddled with court cases that all happened to be timed for election year. Any real press would want the many unanswered questions answered, people scrutinized naked, then flogged.
Why don’t we have the comms still? Why were they mixing in with radio signals from a Biden event taking place simultaneously, an event the Secret Service prioritized. Why would the Secret Service intentionally miss their morning planning meeting, use an unqualifed sharpshooter as lead countersniper, place him behind opaque tree foliage, delegate the covering of nearby rooftops to local police, not tell that to local police?
Cowardice, which means you are not American journalists. But you don’t really fancy yourselves mere American citizens, do you? You’d never be caught dead wearing slogans expressing hope for the nation’s improvement, or the colors of the flag. Tell us how you fancy yourselves.
Why would Trump be so concerned about loyalty this second term. I mean, other than because loyalty is absolutely essential to the leadership of every sovereign nation? (America’s a nation.) Oh I forgot, Trump’s massive toxic male ego. Just like why the only anti-war president of my lifetime wants to take over other Greenland, Canada, and Panama: personal legacy. Only fascistic dictators require loyalty, dawg. Fax.
Why did Mike Johnson’s enmity to FISA court powers so inexplicably reverse? Ahhh this could go on forever. I should just lower my expectations, like Europeans did.
The Today show spent several minutes acting like Tulsi Gabbard had voiced propaganda claims, of the existence of U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine. Then, possibly in the same breath, reported the following… Are you ready this time?
“The United States has in fact funded civilian biological research labs in Ukraine.”
Are you guys all right? I think this is a lifestyle thing, not a dosage thing. Consider what we real liberals call “the self-examined life.” List five things, in private, you consider noble about your profession. Start there.
Genius blogger Andrew Sullivan left The New Yorker Magazine bereft of your illiberal sphere’s now extinct self-critique, explaining why in a pained goodbye letter. Bari Weiss, for a long time my favorite commentator, also wrote a resignation letter to Times. One of your tribe had to make sure your audience understands that their departures, and the battle for free speech in general, is “not really about free speech.”
(What a brave, contrarian AGENT of change you are, Zack Beauchamp.)
Matt Taibbi had to leave the now internationally ridiculed Rolling Stone. He now writes on a site no one would have known about were it not for you, Substack, and the world is reading him. Matt Taibbi had to leave the now internationally ridiculed Rolling Stone, which is run by another beau champion of the new moral certainty.
Kim Iversen was similarly forced out of The Hill. Glenn Greenwald had to leave The Intercept, the outlet he started! Yours alway truly has predicted that Ana Kasparian will be fired or leave voluntarily the oldest and best known online progressive commentary show, The Young Turks. One after another, veterans of American journalism are abandoning the paleomedia frequency. Tucker Carlson was surprise-ejected from FOX News. Remember that? I think literally no one saw that coming.
Start around 15min for Hugh Hewitt's walkoff. He subsequently quit WaPo for good, during the thirteenth of the thirteen presidential elections he has covered. Care to guess what his problem was? It’s why even money guys on CNBC are losing it, and going off on your selltongue counterparts in office (start at 3:19).
The Grey Lady only gets its reporting on government high chicanery correct after the chicanery has been executed successfully. And people still have to read it, sometimes… Not really. They just haven’t looked around yet. You’ve scared them from checking out the plethora of other sources of information, because every outlet but the ones that always agree with each other must be getting it wrong.
It turns out that often still journalistic outlet, The New York Times, has been telling us the whole time its higher purpose, deciding what news is fit for our consumption and what is not. It’s right there in their slogan, “all the news that’s fit to print.”
It turns out, that’s the most honest slogan ever. It turns out they’ve been issuing regular dispensations of disinformation thruout the past century. So, its regularly overriding purpose is to keep people from what they want to know or need to know, until it’s too late—until the activity the confusion and misdirection disguises succeeds.
Once it becomes a bad look to continue denying a fact or an event or a full quote’s content and context—any truth become glaring—, you finally report it, if only to maintain the semblance of a news source. Then you go right back to telling us that acting normal or sane or American or like we respect ourselves is dangerous.
Rittenhouse was visibly innocent; getting a state ID to vote is even easier than voting; Trump never praised white supremacists after Charlottesville; almost all the political violence of the past decade has been initiated by some part of the Left or the Antifa groups our entire federal government and our Soros-Gates-Omidyar-funded agents of legal sedition have been avoiding prosecuting as best they can; children shouldn’t be in charge of irrevocable life decisions; women don’t have Y chromosomes; and somebody tell The View there is no such thing as “undocumented citizens.”
We can’t trust anything you say, almost everything you have accused our president of has proven false, you seem to be against us and even against your own home and its hard-won unique values, and the confidence you emanate in your provable ignorance marks you as tools, of powerful deceivers but also just tools.
But you couldn’t be. You know you’re a good person. That’s why we must be bad.
Well I’m a pro-choice, some-drugs-rock, homo-tolerant, protest-attending, refugee-from-war, nonreligious individualist, and you hate me. You’d be okay with my internment, for the crime of insisting if it affects my body it is my choice. You’d sleep well while I rot in federal prison, even if you never yourself saw proof or court evidence of my guilt.
It’s like you have to maintain a shallow examination of things lest your whole world fall apart. You can’t even remember what liberals are supposed to put faith in—to uphold and in turn enjoy a free society upheld by—so distracting is the cognitive dissonance your masters have you swimming in. Remember free speech? Tolerance? Presumption of innocence until proof of guilt? Not judging people by association? Logic? Humor?
So go on calling arguments you can’t counter all kinds of silly names while you learn slowly your kind of journalism has only misled and wounded innocent people, those who trusted you as well as those who could hear your words missing every target.
Keep wondering why the majority of Americans have become so prone to believing in “disinformation,” conspiracy theories, and globalist bogeymen, as it dawns on you we’ve stopped caring what any of you think, just as you yourself have never really cared what you think.
“I can’t let you, and Cook County, and the city take what my mother worked for and left for her children. Just because the Democrat party think they [are] all that? That they [are] untouchable?…
My letter could have stopped there. But I’m letting go of my habit of excessive verbosity after this piece. You can stop now. Read on only for more of the same.
Do you remember these two perpetually terrified-looking men?
They committed high crimes you never even showed interest in. If our Constitution isn’t sacred enough to you to report violations of, how about the safety of human life? Mayorkas’s definitively treasonous dereliction allowed the rape of American females and murdering of American citizens.
Where were your arguments for impeachment? You LOVE impeachment. You keep saying “twice-impeached” as tho you are mentally incapable of grasping what that conveys to us (that Trump must be both innocent and unfairly persecuted, because both those impeachments failed, hard. Now it’ll be “thrice-impeached.”)
And what of Merry Garnish, the top cop who’s son-in-law happens to have a company that made money peddling political- and social-agenda literature to our schools? You told me the infiltration of sexualizing and racializing literature into public schools and universities wasn’t happening. Meanwhile, thirty- to forty-million parents disagreed.
Garnish used the most powerful law enforcement in the land to go after those parents dangerously speaking at schoolboard meetings, including a father whose daughter was raped by a boy in her school’s girls bathroom. Like you, our attorney general didn’t find proven sexual violations of minors notable enough to investigate. Just parents. They all must have been listening to right-wing/dangerous propaganda.
Such parents don’t know what their children need, for today’s world. The experts writing inside education commentary and our new-SEL teacher trainings do. We should keep trusting them, and the APA too, with our stunted, traumatized youth.
People naturally crave the news. It’s evolutionary. We know we need information, and we seek understandings, paradigms, mental maps and models that make sense of that information for us, because we need to predict things in advance, most of us.
You provide neither useful information nor useful paradigms. The only reliable aspect of your reports is that relying on them decreases our predictive power, leaving us hurt or surprised by everything, like when most the people we’ve lived around for the past eight years decide to vote for Danger Man.
Of course those who still watch and read you are having psychological problems, feel despair unreflective of their circumstances, suffer from bitter feelings natural to have when most your countrymen are racist sexists, too stupid to believe what cannot be explained to them because they’re too stupid.
So you’re not journalists, or teachers, or guides. And you constantly, powerfully denigrate those who do give us useful understandings and mental models that help predict things.
You’re not our protectors, because you cannot be trusted with gatekeeping, because you do not display discernment or due diligence enough to present to us experts who are not soon proven wrong or intentionally disinformative. So your nudges toward what you always all agree is wise or moral or safe behavior seem to be toward cliffs.
You’re not interviewers; more like interrupters.
You’re not our champions. You’re too cowardly or mendacious to speak truth to power, especially when it’s needed. Is “cowardly” too harsh? Maybe you just believe that those in authority should be believed and followed without question. Oh!
I got it. You’re authoritarians. That explains how you use your pen, which if I were you I’d use to stab out both my eyes. Better never to see a word I’ve written, than see at all.
journalism: writing of the language used to convey news to the public
It’s why PBS’s 60 Minutes will never be as trusted again, and lost another million Americans’ credulity, having spliced in one of Kamala Harris’s answers to a different question, to replace the rambling non-answer in their original, unedited interview.
It’s why veteran spellcaster journalist Martha Raddatz described the invader behavior of untraceable foreign gangsters terrorizing and extorting hundreds of renters in Aurora, Colorado as… get ready for this one. God I love how belying of your objectivity you are!
To the incoming vice president J.D. Vance, Raddatz attempted to diminish the noteworthiness of a now infamous Venezuelan gang’s terrorizing and extorting of rents from the tenants of an American property, by describing the unprecedented crime as “taking control” of a mere
“handful of apartment buildings.”
Are we supposed to believe that she believes that J.D. Vance was catastrophizing the takeover? Am I to believe you, Martha Raddatz, feel in your heart that the Right has inappropriately politicized some trivial mischief in Colorado?
Do you see? You’ve made us conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy observers anyway.
Was that part of maintaining the cultish belief that the flood of illegal migrants was not an intentional Biden administration policy? What is the proper number of apartment buildings seized by illegal aliens with long guns to be concerned by?
If it’s a real threat, you ignore it or downplay it. Do you realize what that makes you?
When RFK claimed that the same food products in Europe have far fewer chemical ingredients than in the U.S., The New York Times promptly informed its confused readership that “he was wrong.”
In their fact check, indicative only of paleomedia’s worldview believes certain people are wrong, not certain claims or theories or observations, the paper of tardy record published this refutation of Kennedy’s example: Froot Loops.
And you. Are not. Ready.
“The ingredient list is roughly the same, although Canada’s has natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used ‘for freshness’…”
Do you see how maintaining these denials of reality became ridiculous? Can you see how that would lead to our ridiculing you for maintaining them?
What is a journalist without curiosity? A plant. What is a journalist without courage? A house plant. Wait, I have another one for myself:
(And for all you DEF CON readers too:)
Dear VICE,
How have you guys been doing, since pivoting to cater to woke? I heard Disney bought you? Four hundred million dollars?
Pretty good. What’s that?
They’ve already declared that the investment is "worthless"?
That didn't take long.
Even the Washington Post, once my favorite paper because of the Constitutional armor one of their reporters, Tara Bahrampour, granted me when she stayed with me, fearlessly, as the Secret Service questioned me outside the Intercontinental Hotel. They had even asked her twice to leave so they could… Well, I don’t know what.
I revered you people, thanked every god for America’s allowance of your particular kind to follow your hungry, iconoclastic spirits and more objective, more inquisitive mindsets, to ferret the truth out from these weasels, to do what I cannot and don’t have time to do but need done.
As of this decade, the Brainwashington Post has become my enemy—my libelous, stealth-editing, regularly inexplicably wrong enemy. It would see me in a prison, my life in endless torment, for defending myself against being attacked in a riot of arsonists and sexual criminals. I know this now. I do not use the term enemy lightly.
Pravda: commie for “truth”
Jeffrey Goldberg, was handed the wheel of the magnificent century-and-a-half-year-old ship that he is now crashing into every available rock, The Atlantic Monthly, as an award for lying to us thruout Iraq. He published predictable invectives against Trump for all of last year, such as Anne Applebaum’s pre-election encouragement for readers to think of him as an assassination-worthy dictator, for his dehumanizing speech.
What has he done that is dictatorial? Doesn’t matter. He uses words other leaders used. Never mind how very authoritarian Biden really was, how unconstitutionally censoring via corporate proxies his administration was, how he himself expressed disappointment at the failure to make an example of a young American male defending himself as anyone in the world ought to be able to and only here one can.
(Yes, I’m talking about Kyle Rittenhouse again. It was history’s most important trial.)
And never mind that the Fifth Circuit Court called Biden’s totalitarian, tyrannical oppression during covid, “one of the gravest assaults on free speech since our courts existed,” because it’s the gravest, without contest.
Tell me, “liberal,” what is the significance of the Fifth Circuit Court’s taking that extra time to state for the record such an extreme evaluation? Would jurists be more aware than most people of what constitutes an attempt to fundamentally transform the country, remove the rights of all in an unstoppable, unwarranted, unpunished way?
Not even on your radar. You like censorship that works with and thru the established press. You hate the internet.
Could that explain why the Judicial is the only branch of government checking attempts to subvert every standard this nation has modeled for humanity?
We’re supposed to have four branches, you know. Journalism’s not supposed to be any part of government, but you’re supposed to be “the fourth estate”—a branch of society’s power, outside of government and adversarial to it more often than not.
Now you are an unknown, unprecedented fifth estate. Maybe column would be the better label, because we who see clearly now, because we are looking, can tell your attacks on Trump are against what his arrogance and bombast most essentially represent, an expectation of American standards, and that you and your scriptwriters hope to destroy the expectations of the only free society on Earth.
“Black America’s sayin’, ‘No, you not.’ The true white Americans are sayin’, ‘No, you not.’ The true latino, the true asians are sayin’, ‘No, you not.’
— Jessica Jackson