Journalistic freefall


The New Zealand Herald?has reproduced an article from the Washington Post, clearly without anyone bothering to read it. It is a disgraceful, slanted article, written by someone who clearly does not like the President. They continue to process the fake news that has already been disproven that children are separated from their parents at the border, simply because it suits their narrative to do so. It allows her, she believes, the right to continue to insult and disparage the Trump administration and to insult the people who work for him, even though the narrative is based on lies, and everyone knows they are lies.

We expect no less from the gutter American press. But exactly why the Herald has published it, complete with bile, insults and untruths, is hard to understand. Kiwis don’t buy into this sort of crass journalism, and most people would think it totally unacceptable. Quote:

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders – whose lies are piling up at a furious rate and whose defence of the child-separation policy prompted a reporter to exclaim, “Come on, Sarah, you’re a parent” – was reportedly asked to leave a restaurant in Virginia on Friday because she works for US President Donald Trump.

In a tweet, she explained that “I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @ POTUS and I politely left.”

She then couldn’t help lying again: “I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so.”

Anyone who has seen her sneer, insult and condescend to the press knows that’s not the case. End quote.

Has anyone seen the way the press treats?her? If she weren’t one tough cookie, she’d have slit her throat a long time ago. Quote:

Unsurprisingly, the restaurant confrontations became a source of debate on cable television. On CNN, Ana Navarro tartly observed, “You make choices in life. And there is a cost to being an accomplice to this cruel, deceitful administration.”

So, are these reactions to Trump aides reassuring and appropriate acts of social ostracism that communicate to the cogs in a barbaric bureaucracy that they cannot escape the consequences of their actions?

Alternatively, should we view these as a sign of our descent into incivility, evidence that we are so polarised we literally cannot stand to be in the same room as those with whom we disagree? End of quote:

Most Americans, like most Kiwis, go about their daily business without worrying too much about who else is sitting in the restaurant they are in. This polarisation is driven by a gutter press, frothing at the mouth with false indignation at an immigration policy that hasn’t changed in at least four years. But no one cares about that. Quote:

It depends on how you view the child-separation policy. If you think the decision to separate children from parents as a means of deterring other asylum seekers is simply one more policy choice, like tax cuts or negotiations with North Korea, then, yes, screaming at political opponents is inappropriate. End quote.

Fake news. Comparisons with North Korea. All tactics to tear the reader away from the truth. I’m surprised they haven’t mentioned Hitler yet. Quote:

Such conduct is contrary to the democratic notion that we do not personally destroy our political opponents but, rather, respect differences and learn to fight and perhaps compromise on another day. End quote.

Glad you noticed. Doesn’t stop you from inciting further incidents of similar behaviour though. Quote:

If, however, you think the child-separation policy is in a different class – a human rights crime, an inhumane policy for which the public was primed by efforts to dehumanise a group of people (“animals,” “infest,” etc) – then it is both natural and appropriate for decent human beings to shame and shun the practitioners of such a policy. End quote.

Except that it has now been established beyond doubt that the child separation policy is…oh what the hell. I give up. Quote:

Nevertheless, it is not altogether a bad thing to show those who think they’re exempt from personal responsibility that their actions bring scorn, exclusion and rejection.

If you don’t want to provoke wrath, don’t continue to work for someone whose cruel and inhumane treatment of others rivals the internment of US citizens and non-citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. End quote.

We almost got our reference to Hitler there.

I think you get the picture. American journalists think nothing of insulting public officials over stories that are outright lies and continue to incite violence against those officials, even though it could cause harm to those officials, or to others caught up in the ensuing fracas.

Exactly why the New Zealand Herald has reprinted this article, in a country where we would never dream of treating public officials like that, even if we disagreed with them, I cannot imagine.

This is gutter press at its finest. The fact that the New Zealand Herald decided to print it says a lot about them.