That has never happened to any visitor to New York before.
Let me clarify for readers that Rolling Stone never was a music magazine. Hunter S. Thompson and Timothy Crouser covered the 1972 presidential election for them. Music reviews and puff pieces just paid the bills for the lefty Jann Wenner.
Taibbi used this anecdote to lead his election post-mortem, which really led nowhere. The guts of his where-Democrats-went-wrong song was:
The Democratic Party's failure to keep Donald Trump out of the White House in 2016 will go down as one of the all-time examples of insular arrogance. The party not only spent most of the past two years ignoring the warning signs of the Trump rebellion, but vilifying anyone who tried to point them out. It denounced all rumors of its creeping unpopularity as vulgar lies and bullied anyone who dared question its campaign strategy by calling them racists, sexists and agents of Vladimir Putin's Russia.Sounds cool but a few paragraphs earlier, Taibbi wrote:
Shunned during election season by many in his own party, President-elect Trump's closest advisers are a collection of crackpots and dilettantes who will make Bush's cabinet look like the Nobel committee. The head of his EPA transition team, Myron Ebell, is a noted climate-change denier. Pyramid enthusiast and stabbing expert Ben Carson is already being mentioned as a possible Health and Human Services chief. Rudy Giuliani, probably too unhinged by now for even a People's Court reboot, might be attorney general. God only knows who might end up being Supreme Court nominees; we can only hope they turn out to be lawyers, or at least people who played lawyers onscreen. And sitting behind this fun-house nightmare of executive-branch worthies (which Politico speculates will be one of the more "eclectic" cabinets ever) will be a rubber-stamping all-Republican legislature that will attract the loving admiration of tinhorn despots from Minsk to Beijing.So before mocking Democrats declaring Trump and his people were "agents of Vladimir Putin's Russia," Taibbi said "a rubber-stamping all-Republican legislature that will attract the loving admiration of tinhorn despots from Minsk to Beijing."
And a few paragraphs after telling Democrats they made a mistake by calling Trump supporters racist and the whole basket of deplorables, Taibbi wrote that indeed we were racist:
Most of us smarty-pants analysts never thought Trump could win because we saw his run as a half-baked white-supremacist movement fueled by last-gasp, racist frustrations of America's shrinking silent majority. Sure, Trump had enough jackbooted nut jobs and conspiracist stragglers under his wing to ruin the Republican Party. But surely there was no way he could topple America's reigning multicultural consensus. How could he? After all, the country had already twice voted in an African-American Democrat to the White House.
Yes, Trump's win was a triumph of the hideous racism, sexism and xenophobia that has always run through American society. But his coalition also took aim at the neoliberal gentry's pathetic reliance on proxies to communicate with flyover America. They fed on the widespread visceral disdain red-staters felt toward the very people Hillary Clinton's campaign enlisted all year to speak on its behalf: Hollywood actors, big-ticket musicians, Beltway activists, academics, and especially media figures.As heir to Thompson (who knew "flyover country") and Crouser (who knew journalists know jack) Taibbi is a disappointment.
And even though he is more than a decade older than Thompson was covering the 1972 campaign, Taibbi is a big crybaby.
Someone in New York City told him to "f*** yourself"?
Well, what do he expect from people the press labels as sexist, racist, xenophobic, and unAmerican? "Welcome, sonny"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry my daughter"?
But it was not personal.
It was directed to the press in general.
And what did Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post say about the press?
One of Donald Trump's hobby horses during the presidential campaign and even now that he has emerged as the president-elect is how deeply negative the media coverage of him was during the 2016 race. Turns out he was right, according to a new study out of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
“His coverage was negative from the start [of the general election] and never came close to entering positive territory,” writes Thomas E. Patterson, the Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at Harvard. “During his best weeks, the coverage ran 2-to-1 negative over positive. In his worst weeks, the ratio was more than 10-to-1. If there was a silver lining for Trump, it was that his two best weeks were the ones just preceding the November balloting.”
The negativity of the coverage was broadly consistent across each of the outlets the Harvard study included. CBS had the most negative coverage and Fox News Channel the least negative, but the differences between the two were not vast.
Have a little fun. Read "Trump the Press," in which I skewer media experts who wrongly predicted Trump would lose the Republican nomination. "Trump the Press" is available as a paperback, and on Kindle.
For an autographed copy, email me at DonSurber@GMail.com