NPR Watch (5/22/17) — The Candidate vs. the President


If it weren’t so tragic, it would be hilarious. As you all know, I listen to National Public Radio (NPR) on a regular basis — so you don’t have to. They’re left-wing hacks, whose “news” programs leave you less informed than before you hear them, because the features are, indeed, Fake News.

<BEGIN Fake News digression>

Others may disagree (my hero, the great Kevin Williamson of National Review, for example), but I define Fake News as any information presented as news, but delivered with the intent to deceive, or persuade, or manipulate the observer. Others may call this propaganda, but I view Fake News as precisely that: nothing more than a flavor of propaganda.

You can do all that — make Fake News — quite easily, simply by presenting certain sets of facts, all of which may be perfectly true, but then by omitting other facts that provide necessary context and perspective.

The example I use frequently is: Fact #1:Many Americans and people around the world, greeted the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency with alarm and fear.” This is a truth. So is this one: Fact #2: Many Americans and people around the world, greeted the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency with relief and excitement.” And this next one is also true: Fact #3:Many Americans and people around the world, greeted the 2008 election of Barack Obama to the Presidency with alarm and fear.” And yes, here’s Fact #4:Many Americans and people around the world, greeted the 2008 election of Barack Obama to the Presidency with relief and excitement.”

All presidential elections inspire vast fear, relief, alarm and excitement throughout the world. No presidential election does not inspire those things. If, however, you “report” only the “Donald Trump alarm and fear,” thing, without the necessary context-giving other, equally true facts, then you have presented genuine, authentic, realFake News.

<END Fake News digression>

Anyway, here’s the thing that I’ve been noticing lately, both on NPR and on the rest of the dominant legacy media, as well as in other locales, such as the judiciary: Someone will say something like: “During the campaign, Donald Trump said, “insert policy position or campaign promise here,” but as President, here’s what he’s saying now: “insert policy pronouncement that differs from campaign statement here.

This will be reported scornfully, so as to make it appear as though Trump ran for office under false pretenses. My observation: Wow! If only they had been as diligent about being sure that Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric matched his pronouncements as President!

If that had happened, there would be no Obamacare (because Obama cared deeply about what his friends, allies, minions, fellow travelers and co-conspirators in the media) thought and wrote. And, like all Democrat candidates for the Presidency, Obama used right-wing rhetoric about choice, personal responsibility and free markets to pitch his left-wing agenda; such as his choice-, personal responsibility-, and market-killing health care scam.

There would have been none of Obama’s “leading from behind” nonsense.

Obama would have been a weak tea, vaguely left-of-center President instead of the hard-left clodpole he turned out to be. Why? Because no one in the media ever said anything like, “Candidate Barack Obama said this, while President Obama says that.”

Needless to say, the realities of the Presidency had better modify a successful candidate’s positions, or else we’d all be in big trouble… every Presidency.

It’s important for a candidate to adjust his policy positions to fit the realities of the world, once he assumes the office. Presumably once the President-elect is the President, then he is also privy to a lot more to which he was not privy before. That should change things.

Also needless to say, though, the media and the Left view everything Trump does as a horrific crime against humanity. Trump could support a single-payer health care system tomorrow, and people like Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Rachel Maddow, et al would instantly turn into the greatest free-market health care capitalists you ever saw.(1)

That’s how drooling, slack-jawed, blank-stare, stupid and unprincipled the media and the Left are.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) This isn’t exactly true, but it’s an exaggeration used to make a point. If Trump were to endorse Socialized medicine — a single-payer system — the Left would crow and claim victory, and the Right would go ballistic. However, Trump’s hypothetical leftward lurch wouldn’t change in the least the Left’s hogwash accusation that Trump is right-wing extremist who needs to be impeached. That’s how drooling, slack-jawed, blank-stare, stupid and unprincipled the media and the Left really are.

Advertisements

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s