The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Rules of Engagement

I frequently use the term "trained hamsters" to refer to the obsequious coverage mainstream journalists regularly use when covering Democrats or promoting the Democrat or progressive narrative. They rarely ask Dems or left-leaning spokespeople hard or embarrassing questions, they avoid providing context that would cause a reader or viewer to question the narrative, and they avoid suggesting that a Democrat politician is dishonest, venal, or otherwise flawed.

Yet the hamsters grow very long, very sharp teeth when they "report" on the GOP. They don't care whose life or reputation is ruined (think: the reporting on Bret Kavenaugh), they pile on to demand boycotts (think: BDS) or firings (think: demands that commentator Tucker Carlson be fired), having no concern for people's livelihoods or a company's existence. You'd think their editors would tire of the terms like "racist" or "white supremacist" but they never do. Whether it's the NYT, or WaPO or CNN or MSNBC and many others, coverage and commentary is biased and vicious. It often becomes unhinged when Donald Trump is the target.

Historically, conservatives and the GOP have accepted all of this quietly, but as a consequence of Donald Trump's 'punch back' philosophy, things have started to change. Madeline Osburn comments:
After years of doxxing innocent Americans for their political views, mainstream media journalists are now upset that their own racist and antisemitic tweets have been complied by conservative allies of President Trump.

Last week, a New York Times editor, Tom Wright-Piersanti, was demoted after 10-year-old tweets mocking Jews and American Indians resurfaced and were widely covered by conservative outlets. On Sunday, the New York Times reported that Wright-Piersanti’s archived social media posts were part of the White House’s “aggressive operation to discredit news organizations.”

The Times report decried this tactic, arguing that targeting individuals is acceptable when journalists do it to other people, but not when other people do it to them.
The Left never, ever likes it when their own rules of engagement are used by their opponents. They whine about attacks on the media and the viciousness and incivility of it all, while encouraging viciousness and incivility as it is applied to their ideological opponents. They can't have it both ways. Osburn writes:
National media outlets have harassed countless other private individuals who support the president on social media or create memes. Yet publications such as the New York Times become outraged when conservatives point out that their own employees spew virulent, racist, and antisemitic views on social media — and remain employed.
Bullies are often shocked when their target punches back. That's what is happening, and the media hamsters don't like it one little bit.

And about this "aggressive operation to discredit news organizations." There's really no need. The news organizations are doing everything possible to discredit themselves.