While you’re raging over, say, the New York Times headlines (even Paul Krugman did a job on the one misstating Trump’s “achievements”), I’ve been spotting a subtle but meaningful difference in the way the paper reports about Trump statements.<\/p>\n
Today, there’s a good example:<\/p>\n
In a social media post, the president described the move as a deterrent prompted by threats by a former Russian leader. It is unclear if any submarines did actually change position.<\/em><\/p>\n “Trump says…” That’s the first thing I noticed. He “says.” Not “Trump Ordered Subs…” but he says<\/em> he did, thereby indicating that, in the endless barrage of bizarre Trumpisms, no one is accepting (or even trying to confirm) that he did what he said he did.<\/p>\n And then, to further emphasize the reaction we all have when Trump talks (personally, I automatically translate such stuff into “it didn’t happen” mode, or “another lie” mode, or I downgrade his brain functioning from stupid to nitwit and mentally re-evaluate that he is demented), the Times says, “It is unclear if any submarines did actually change position.”<\/p>\n Now, I realize I might be the only one who spies this nuanced journalism but since moving our nuclear subs into some sort of battle position vis-a-vis Russia would, with a real president, be a BFD…well, this nuance is a big Times deal.<\/p>\n This isn’t the first time and I’m sure it won’t be the last that the Times is not merely repeating what he says because he is the president. They are inserting derogations within the necessity of remarking what he says because he is the president.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" While you’re raging over, say, the New York Times headlines (even Paul Krugman did a job on the one misstating Trump’s “achievements”), I’ve been spotting a subtle but meaningful difference in the way the paper reports about Trump statements. Today, … Continue reading