Editors who defend their anti-Trump bias hurt journalism, not Trump. No Labels finds a label. Eclipse proves Earth & moon orbits are still reliable, thank goodness.
By Gary Abernathy
Plain Dealer editor congratulates himself for his newspaper’s bias against Donald Trump
Updated
A recent self-congratulatory column by The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer editor Chris Quinn offers a perfect example of how the news media has lost its way in the Age of Trump.
Over the weekend, Quinn wrote a “Letter from the Editor” describing the reaction to a column he wrote the previous week “about why we will continue reporting as fact the threat Donald Trump presents to our democracy.”
In his original column, Quinn wrote:
A more-than-occasional arrival in the email these days is a question expressed two ways, one with dripping condescension and the other with courtesy:
Why don’t our opinion platforms treat Donald Trump and other politicians exactly the same way. Some phrase it differently, asking why we demean the former president’s supporters in describing his behavior as monstrous, insurrectionist and authoritarian.
Quinn went on to trot out all the usual high-minded ideals that journalists use to justify their abandonment of traditional journalistic principles in covering Trump and his supporters. To wit:
Trump is responsible for an insurrection, the most “serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War.”
The facts involving Trump are “crystal clear,” and there aren’t two sides.
Equating Trump’s actions with anything President Joe Biden has done is a “false equivalency.”
Tolerating or empowering Trump is comparable to those who tolerated and empowered Hitler.
And so on and so forth. It’s the same alarmist justification for covering Trump and his supporters with a different standard than the one used to cover the Democrats that has been rolled out since the New York Times – and then others in quick order – gave itself permission to start calling Trump a liar. The way in which most of the far-left (formerly mainstream) media covers Trump is the way in which they have clearly wanted to cover Republicans for decades. Trump just finally pushed them over the edge.
So common has this become among far-left media that it’s not even worth commenting. What is notable is the follow-up column a week later when Quinn rolled out another piece congratulating himself for his first piece.
According to Quinn, the response to his “we hate Trump and here’s how we justify covering him so unfairly” column was overwhelmingly positive and even, well, humbling.
Quinn said his column was forwarded, shared, and social media’d just about everywhere, and golly gee, people on TV even talked about it, especially his fellow Trump haters on MSNBC and CNN.
And here’s the kicker:
I’ve received more than 2,700 emails and counting, with more than 90 percent offering thanks and kudos. They’ve come from across the globe – New Zealand, Croatia, Ireland, Spain – and from most of the 50 states. One writer after another after another championed our newsroom as a model for all. It’s quite humbling.
Well, not so humbling as to preclude him from writing a self-congratulatory column. Most columnists know to avoid this alluring but inaccurate indication of validation – the one that goes, “Everyone I talk to tells me I’m right, so I must be right.” In fact, what is right or accurate is not proven by reader feedback. Right and wrong, and accuracy vs. inaccuracy, are not correctly gauged by a bubbled public reaction.
Quinn offered no evidence that 90 percent — that would be 2,430 of his 2,700 email responses — offered “thanks and kudos.” But for the sake of argument, let’s say they did. It likely means that cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer has lost so many Republicans, conservatives and Trump supporters over the years that its readership is down to primarily the same far-left universe as the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, etc., and that Quinn’s Trump-bashing column was shared and enjoyed mostly by other Trump bashers.
When I was writing for the Post, I knew that if I wrote something Trump-supporting or favorable to the GOP, the responses would be devastatingly negative. When I occasionally wrote something more left-leaning – such as supporting reparations for the descendants of slaves – I would predictably receive an overwhelmingly positive email response. Neither reaction proved that I was right or wrong in either case – it just meant that the Post’s particular readership was politically geared toward a certain partisan point of view.
But if Quinn wants to play the numbers game and presume that “might makes right,” he should take a look at the latest polling in his state of Ohio showing Trump with a lead over Biden of at least 9 points and as much as 12 in one poll. Makes you wonder where that “90 percent” of favorable emails lauding him for his anti-Trump stance is coming from.
Quinn’s summation of the response to his original column included this gem, which was revealing of his partisan foundation:
Thank you to everyone who wrote with so many kind words. I don’t feel I deserve them, but I’m glad that the column offered people hope. Thanks, too, to Kasie Hunt and Nicolle Wallace. They’re beloved figures, clearly, and their huge audiences carried the column far.
Kasie Hunt and Nicolle Wallace are “beloved figures, clearly?” CNN and MSNBC have “huge audiences?” Both those things are true only in the imaginations of the left, with which Quinn clearly identifies — which is fine, if you put your partisanship aside when it’s time to do your job as a journalist.
For a fact check, here are the latest cable news ratings, for March:
Fox News, 2.1 million viewers primetime, 1.3 million total day.
MSNBC, 1.3 million viewers primetime, 830,000 total day.
CNN, 601,000 viewers primetime, 462,000 total day.
Fox News had 11 out of the top 15 shows in overall viewers, and 13 out of the top 15 in the coveted 25-54 age range, according to the March ratings.
Compared to television’s heyday, no one has “huge audiences.” But if anyone qualifies, it’s certainly not MSNBC or CNN.
Quinn’s unfortunate definition of good journalism is what served as a catalyst for so many of the columns I have written over the years – both before, during and after my years writing for the Post – on how journalism has lost its way, and how Trump supporters are so routinely and cavalierly maligned. The condescension, smugness and sense of superiority from the lecturers is what truly qualifies as “overwhelming.”
As I’ve said and written many times, Trump’s post-2020 election actions were shameful. Even if there were legitimate complaints about how the election was conducted – and there were – for the sake of democracy he should have accepted the outcome more gracefully and shown up on Jan. 20, 2021, for Biden’s inauguration to demonstrate his support for the peaceful transfer of power.
But Trump did not stage a coup (on Jan. 6, 2021, he was still in power; you cannot overthrow your own government). The millions of Americans who support Trump are not comparable to Nazis; the vast majority of them are normal, honest, hardworking, patriotic, taxpaying citizens. Trump is trying to become president again not through authoritarian means or a military coup, but through the typical primary and general election processes – democracy in action – just like every other candidate.
Trump and his supporters deserve to be covered accurately. That means sometimes the coverage will be critical, and that’s fine. But it also means there will not be an automatic anti-Trump bias as the starting point, which is what Quinn and others are trying to justify these days.
Journalism would be well-served by covering Trump and his supporters with the same fair, balanced and detached standard that served our nation pretty well prior to Trump. Doing otherwise has not hurt Trump. But it has immeasurably damaged journalism.
The Great Eclipse of 2024 has come and gone, as predicted
In case you haven’t heard, every so often – and a lot more often than people think – the moon moves between the Earth and the sun in such a manner as to totally or partially block the sun’s visibility from Earth for a few minutes.
In fact, according to “The Complete Guide to the 2024 North American Eclipse” that I picked up at my favorite science headquarters (Kroger), an annular or total eclipse happens every year or two; it’s just not always visible in the U.S. But before this year, parts of the U.S. witnessed a total eclipse as recently as August of 2017.
I understand why it’s interesting as a quirk of the whole science of orbits. But it really just proves that the Earth is still orbiting around the sun and the moon is still orbiting around the Earth in their expected patterns, thank goodness. The eclipse has been a little overhyped, not only on cable news channels, as expected, but also by local TV stations that really went all out, even interrupting regular programming Monday afternoon to air live coverage of eclipse-watching gatherings around the region. Some eclipse watchers who were interviewed seemed to get quite emotional.
Perhaps an eclipse was more astounding before we figured out astronomy, back when an eclipse would take us by surprise. That was no doubt pretty scary.
But now we know it’s coming and why it happens. Make no mistake, Lora and I (and Paisley) watched it from our apartment balcony in between continuing to work. Frankly, if I had to go elsewhere to see it, I wouldn’t have — but others obviously felt much differently about it.
I heard some people describe it as life-changing. More power to them. For me, it was just an interesting thing that happened on Monday, nothing more, nothing less.
Donald Trump’s version of the eclipse (below) was perhaps more entertaining. Some called it “bizarre” or worse, and some Trump haters were angry about it, which shows how easily he lives inside their heads. It’s hilarious.
New York Times sees illegal immigration as ‘robust’ and a contributor to the job market
The disparity in how the far-left media (once known as mainstream media) views illegal immigration versus how most Americans see it was starkly on display in a New York Times article on Friday about the latest employment numbers.
The Times – attempting to explain positive hiring numbers – reported as follows:
Immigration has been robust over the past two years, creating a flood of potential workers that is both supercharging the job market and leading to surprises and quirks in closely watched economic data.
“Immigration has been robust.” Dwell on that for a minute. Lest you think perhaps the Times is merely describing legal immigration, such a notion is dispelled just a few lines later as the story lumps all immigration together.
The jump has come as legal migration and border apprehensions surge, and while the jump in immigration is politically contentious, the resulting pop in population is also fueling strong hiring.
Of course, using accurate terms such as “illegal immigration” was abandoned long ago by the far-left media. “There are no such people as illegal people,” we are lectured. In fact, there are, when they do illegal things such as entering a country illegally.
The thousands each week who are entering the United States illegally – and unvetted – are seen by the New York Times as evidence of “robust” immigration that is “supercharging the job market.” It represents a “pop in population” that is helping to fuel our economy, according to the Times.
No worries about what might be nefarious intentions by those sneaking into the country illegally, no concern over the strain to the national infrastructure, no mention of the thousands of illegal immigrants who don’t go to work but instead exist on theft (or commit other crimes) or live on government (taxpayer) handouts.
“Robust” immigration. It’s clear evidence that we’re not ready to stop using fossil fuels – such robust media gaslighting will require the production of additional methane for years to come.
For Trump haters, charges are as damning as convictions
Reporting and commentary on the various indictments and pending trials facing Donald Trump are right out of a playbook his haters have been employing since he won the presidency. It’s not important whether he’s convicted or not; what matters is that they can point to Trump being charged.
It’s reminiscent of his impeachments. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made it clear that Trump actually being convicted of articles of impeachment was not the point.
After Trump’s first impeachment, Pelosi made the point several times, including in a December 2019 interview with the Associated Press in which she said, “He just got impeached. He’ll be impeached forever. No matter what the Senate does. He’s impeached forever because he violated our Constitution.”
Abusing the legal system – either Congress’s power of impeachment or the nation’s courts – to smear someone with charges has become the playbook against Trump. In truth, charging someone with articles of impeachment is no more serious than indicting them, as a grand jury does. It means nothing unless there is a conviction.
But countless Trump haters continue using the same playbook, including Hillary Clinton in a recent interview with Jimmy Fallon. Discussing the choice Americans face this November between Trump and President Biden, Clinton said, “One is old and effective and compassionate, has a heart and really cares about people. And one is old and has been charged with 91 felonies.”
In their minds, that’s all they need to say. Trump will be impeached forever. Trump will have always been charged with 91 felonies. What happens from that point is irrelevant to them – the campaign against Trump has been established.
This is what people mean when they say the legal system has been weaponized against Trump. Even if some of the charges against Trump have merit – and that seems shakier all the time – the charges themselves have become the verdict. Our long-held tradition of presuming innocence is out the window when it comes to Trump.
Why stop at 91 charges? Why not 200? Or 500? Or a thousand? Just keep piling on charges, since their sheer enumeration seems to be the only conclusion necessary. When it comes to the choice for president, one of them doesn’t have any felony charges (which is thanks at least in part to the blind eyes of prosecutors) and one of them does. Case closed, Trump’s opponents conclude. And the far-left media merrily plays along.
No Labels gives up its dream, gives in to reality
Not surprisingly, the No Labels effort to field a “Unity Ticket” for the upcoming presidential election has collapsed. As reported by The Dispatch, one of the biggest reasons given by prospective candidates and their advisors for deciding against running had to do with unimpressive presentations led by No Labels senior officials, which I am relaying with my own responses:
Polling data meant to prove the viability of a No Labels ticket was superficial and incomplete, at least as revealed. This likely means the polling data wasn’t very favorable to a third-party run. That’s not surprising, when it’s difficult to conduct a poll without knowing who your candidates are.
Plans for campaign infrastructure and staffing were thin. Of course. You can’t build an infrastructure or provide staffing for a campaign until people know that it’s actually happening.
The group had accumulated a massive voter file but left potential recruits with the impression it lacked a file of grassroots donors who give in small amounts online that could be shared with a ticket once nominated. This was disputed later by a No Labels official, according to the story, but again, it’s not hard to believe that there’s not an appreciable grassroots small-dollar donor file when donors don’t know who or what they’re supporting. Voter files are public records and can be built. But donor files are more painstaking to create, usually jealously guarded, and specifics matter when it comes to asking people to part with their donor lists.
There was no roster of designated election lawyers committed to handling the complicated state-by-state litigation made available for the likely event the major political parties challenged the legality of the No Labels ballot line. This is the advantage of being an established party with a built-in, state-by-state infrastructure grown over the course of decades – including election lawyers.
There was little specificity on how much financial support might be expected from New Leaders 2024, the super PAC established to support the group’s White House ticket. Again, they’re trying to put the cart before the horse. Knowing who the ticket will include would directly impact how much financial support to expect. For instance, a Joe Manchin-Chris Christie ticket, in either order, would generate a lot more donor support than an Andy Beshear-Geoff Duncan ticket.
Almost every presidential cycle brings talk of a major effort to field a third-party challenge to the Republican and Democratic parties. But even the most successful third-party candidate in modern history – Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 – failed to win a single state, although he probably helped elect Bill Clinton both times.
The reality is that if you want to make a real difference, choose a party – as Donald Trump realized by the time 2015 rolled around after flirting with various third-party notions for several years.
In the end, No Labels finally found a label: “Expired.”
Get it while you can (and while Amazon lets you): ‘MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal,’ in print and eBook
My new book, “MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal — And Other Shocking Notions,” is available on Amazon — so far. Buy it here.
Here’s a link to our website dedicated to the book. Please spread the word, because, as detailed previously, Amazon is not allowing me to use its ad program to promote the book. Thanks!
Sign up or share this newsletter
Please sign up to receive this newsletter directly into your inbox or, if you are already a subscriber and reading this by email, share with a friend using the convenient button below. Thank you.