Two weeks ago a deranged leftist Bernie Sanders acolyte attempted mass murder on Republicans who were practicing at a baseball field. You probably have trouble recalling the name James Hodgkinson by now as the story disappeared in record time. There was no introspective looks at why liberals have become so unglued since Donald Trump became president, no calls to dial down the angry rhetoric, and certainly no attempt by the media to curtail the endless stream of fake news.
The Atlantic’s Editor In Chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, on Wednesday said that he suspects that someone who listens to President Trump will see journalists as enemies of the state and carry out a violent attack against them. He said Trump would be responsible for such an attack.
Yahoo News’ Global Anchor Katie Couric asked Goldberg what his reaction is to Trump’s continued accusations against reporters of being “fake news.”
“Well, part of my reaction is that we’re are all engaged in a reality TV show. That this is a reality TV version of a war between the president and the press,” Goldberg said.
“The problem is, and this is what I worry about more than anything else, is that there are people in the country who don’t understand that this a cynical reality TV game,” Goldberg concluded. “And are going to hear over and over again from the president that the reporters, journalists are enemies of the state…and someone is going to do something violent against journalists in a large way, and then I know where the fault lies.
Talk about a total lack of self-awareness. After the Democrats and media (but we repeat ourselves) have indulged in an orgy of hate toward Trump and babbled about Russia for eight months, it culminated in Rep. Steve Scalise lying near death, along with others, including a female bodyguard, wounded. But hey, it’s the media that has to live in fear or something.
CNN’s Clarissa Ward, a foreign correspondent, served as guest co-host on Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s News Day. Ward fretted that “people” in war zones have been “emboldened” by President Trump’s “declaration of war on the media.” Ward, expressing concern for members of the media in dangerous areas of the world, said to guest Chris Cillizza, ‘I can only imagine what a person like you is dealing with. At what point does this become reckless or irresponsible?’
It should be noted Chris Cillizza is a Washington-based political correspondent and commentator.
As Livia Soprano was famous for saying, “Oh, poor you.” Now if that isn’t rich enough, along come a pack of New York Times editors whining like little bitches about how awful their lives are going while churning out their daily dose of hatred toward all things Republican and conservative.
Dear Dean and Joe,
We have begun the humiliating process of justifying our continued presence at The New York Times. We take some solace in the fact that we have been assured repeatedly that copy editors are highly respected here.
If that is true, we have a simple request. Cutting us down to 50 to 55 editors from more than 100, and expecting the same level of quality in the report, is dumbfoundingly unrealistic. Work with us on a new number.
But after living more than a year and a half under a cloud of uncertainty about our jobs, a cruelly drawn-out period in which we suspended major financial arrangements and life decisions, and carried an ever-growing kernel of fear;
After we were compared to dogs urinating on fire hydrants when we edited stories, in an internal report that called for the elimination of “low-value editing” and made it all but clear which stages of editing this referred to — so much so that it became a running joke among the copy desks for months (“How’s the low-value editing going in your section today?”) — along with the report’s implication that copy editing was merely finding “easily identifiable errors, such as spelling and grammar mistakes”;
After some of us were recruited for “editing tests” to streamline the process, or, as it turned out, figure out how to make our own jobs obsolete;
After enduring a newsroom-wide copy-editing overhaul last year that consolidated the desks, transformed the scope of our duties and confused a whole lot of reporters and section editors (but ultimately made us think we would at least keep our jobs);
After learning that this new setup would be undone just months after it was put in place, with the whiplash announcement that our jobs would simply be eliminated;
After we were told that to remain employed, we would have to apply for new “strong editor” positions meant to be a hybrid of the two types of editors at The Times, backfielders and copy editors, and realized only copy editors had to be reevaluated categorically;
After we were told that this “restructuring” would also reduce our numbers by more than half;
After completing a first round of interviews, some held by interviewers who clearly had not even read our résumés and cover letters, and competing against the very colleagues we are leaning on in these times;
After we heard that The Times would soon go on a hiring spree, just as it gets ready to shed jobs, and thought to ourselves that it is particularly ruthless to talk about all the others you intend to court as you break up with someone;
After all of this and more — we are finding it difficult to feel respected.
In fact, we feel more respected by our readers than we do by you. We are living in a strange time when routine copy-editing duties such as fact checking, reviewing sources, correcting misleading or inaccurate information, clarifying language and, yes, fixing spelling and grammar mistakes in news covfefe are suddenly matters of public discourse. As those in power declare war against the news media, as deliberately false or lackadaisical reportage finds its way into social media feeds, readers are flocking to our defense. They are sending us pizza. And they are signing up for Times subscriptions in record numbers because they understand that we go to great lengths to ensure quality and, most important, truth.
Even while mewling about the sad state of the media — entirely of its own doing — they’re taking cheap shots at Trump over a weeks-old tweet.
Then we get to the loathsome CNN hack Jim Acosta, who continues with his daily temper tantrums desgined to make himself the news:
CNN’s eccentric Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta had been all over CNN and social media this week throwing a temper-tantrum over how the White House press briefings were being conducted. But during an appearance on The Situation Room, Wednesday evening, Acosta went full liberal activist as he decried the Trump administration and tried to smear a conservative panelist. “What we’re witnessing right now is just this erosion of our freedoms in terms of covering the president of the United States,” he claimed while standing in front of the White House.
Acosta then proceeded to whine about how few press conferences President Trump had had press since taking office. “This issue of turning off the cameras in the briefing rooms,” he said, switching the topic to his favorite subject. “Wolf, I could hold up my phone tomorrow and live stream that press briefing with Sean Spicer or Sarah Sanders, whoever comes in there, and that is just where technology is right now.”
“So to think that we’re going backwards and not having things on camera to me is just preposterous,” he chided. But Acosta was infamous for his on camera battels with both Press Secretary Sean Spicer and President Trump.
Not to be outdone, CNN cub reporter Brian Stelter sniveled all day on Twitter Wednesday, quickly becoming a punchline:
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 28, 2017
We’re not sure if it’s the pissing and moaning that bothers us more, or the self-pity and stunning lack of self-awareness from a group of people who rank among ISIS in public approval.
Won't someone help this gentleman? Needs a boost up on that cross. https://t.co/ybzWOEcHSF
— Cuffy (@CuffyMeh) June 28, 2017
Please keep it up, media. As you play the victim, remember you’re a victim of your own doing.