http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-craven-journalist.html
To further illustrate the same pattern, here is an opinion piece by 'The New York Times' columnist David Brooks —
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/opinion/what-a-failed-trump-administration-looks-like.htm
https://archive.is/G52uU
This is the main question that comes to my mind when I read opinion pieces like these:
Who does the author think is being fooled?This is an opinion piece, so it is not expected to contain only a description of facts — but notice that Brooks does not provide a single fact to support his sweeping denunciations. Brooks wrote his opinion piece in what is essentially code to credulous readers of 'The New York Times'. If you are an ardent Democrat, and you are eager to dismiss the corruption of the likes of Hillary Clinton, then such writing resonates with you emotionally, but that is all. Here is more on Hillary Clinton's corruption, in case you had forgotten —
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/07/mediamatters-hillary-clintons-shill.html
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/08/lying-about-hillary-clintons-lies.html
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/09/paul-krugman-and-hillary-clinton-birds.html
That is, if you are honestly trying to understand anything regarding Trump's administration, what Brooks wrote is completely unconvincing, and so it is pointless — no one who does not already despise Trump — or has any critical thinking skills — will be swayed by it.
Consider Brooks's first paragraph —
https://archive.is/G52uU
I still have trouble seeing how the Trump administration survives a full term. Judging by his Thursday press conference, President Trump’s mental state is like a train that long ago left freewheeling and iconoclastic, has raced through indulgent, chaotic and unnerving, and is now careening past unhinged, unmoored and unglued.
What is Brooks communicating here apart from contempt? There is a comedic aspect to this kind of adjective laden writing — it is as if the author is attempting to fool the reader into believing that the lack of substance is somehow sophisticated.
And how about this —
https://archive.is/G52uU
There are no longer moral arbiters in Congress like Howard Baker and Sam Ervin to lead a resignation or impeachment process. There is no longer a single media establishment that shapes how the country sees the president. This is no longer a country in which everybody experiences the same reality.
Brooks drops a mention of impeachment without even a suggestion regarding any possible grounds for impeachment — Brooks just expects readers to fill in the blanks. Even if readers believe that Trump should be impeached, after only about one month in office, why would Brooks simply assume anyone would agree with his opinion regarding the justification? The point is not whether you believe Trump should be impeached or not — the point is, why would a writer simply assume that readers would understand his reasoning regarding the supposed grounds for impeachment?
Of course, I am being ridiculous. Again, this is code. There is no need to substantiate anything inside of an echo chamber — Brooks is just throwing agreement at dull ignorant readers who want to delude themselves that they stand on principle, despite their complete inability to articulate or defend any principles. That readers have no idea regarding the details of what Brooks is actually talking about is critical — Brooks and his readers just want to share their hatred.
And the last two sentences in the paragraph from Brooks quoted above are so transparently ridiculous they are laughable. There is no doubt that Brooks longs for a society where all individuals are as credulous as his admiring readers, so he and his colleagues could have them all 'experience the same reality' — we should be thankful that Brooks is completely open in his view of the proper role of media in society. It is a pity that David Brooks will not struggle to understand the significance and difficulty of actually understanding reality, before he anoints a 'a single media establishment' with 'shaping how the country sees' anything.
And the paragraphs from Brooks quoted below deserve to be repeated — notice how Brooks almost seems to relish a lack of rule of law in government, and that corrupt government employees will do whatever they want, regardless of the law (never mind their employment agreement) —
https://archive.is/G52uU
The likelihood is this: We’re going to have an administration that has morally and politically collapsed, without actually going away.
What does that look like?
First, it means an administration that is passive, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. To get anything done, a president depends on the vast machinery of the U.S. government. But Trump doesn’t mesh with that machinery. He is personality-based while it is rule-based. Furthermore, he’s declared war on it. And when you declare war on the establishment, it declares war on you.
The Civil Service has a thousand ways to ignore or sit on any presidential order. The court system has given itself carte blanche to overturn any Trump initiative, even on the flimsiest legal grounds. The intelligence community has only just begun to undermine this president.
President Trump can push all the pretty buttons on the command deck of the Starship Enterprise, but don’t expect anything to actually happen, because they are not attached.
Is that clear? Part of this assessment from David Brooks of 'a Failed Trump Administration' is that government employees are corrupt at all levels, and freely ignore the law.
And to David Brooks, this is a denunciation of Trump.
Now I cannot tell who is more corrupt — David Brooks, or the lawless government he is describing.
No comments:
Post a Comment