We often consider Trump’s actions as president through the lens of what presidents do instead of the lens of what Trump does. A president wouldn’t simply wave away negative coverage as phony, contrived or dangerous to the country. Trump would. He’s made this clear since he launched his campaign, lashing out against news outlets that covered him critically, including barring them from his events. And he just made it explicitly clear.
So, following the line of thought: Those who write critical coverage of Trump are the enemy. That’s the qualification.
Bear in mind, negative coverage doesn’t mean incorrect coverage. Martin Shkreli gets a lot of negative coverage, in part because he actively fosters it and in part because he’s mostly in the news for doing things like being arrested or jacking up the prices of critical medications. Lots of negative coverage, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
...Presenting an honest portrait of elected leaders even — and especially — against their will is, of course, why the First Amendment to the Constitution cements the role of a free press.
New poster comments are moderated,
meaning they won't show up until approved... or not. Be patient-we
have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude?
totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your
post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments
but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt
propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up
right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammersMore on commenting