All errors should be reported to

Wednesday, February 06, 2019

Deliriously Democrat reporting of Trump's speech

Yahoo News led its coverage today with this headline, "Pelosi steals the spotlight on Trump's big night."

Seriously? Yahoo is going to go with that as the hot take from a speech that had women who protesting President Trump standing up and cheering his words?

He had a good night with good TV ratings. Pelosi did not.

The press spun the event. It cannot help it. Reporters are anti-Trump, which renders them as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

In their story, the Associated Press's Julia Pace and Catherine Lucey buried in Paragraph 22 the Democrat congresswomen cheering.

The paragraph said, "The diverse Democratic caucus, which includes a bevy of women, sat silently for much of Trump’s speech. But they leapt to their feet when he noted there are 'more women in the workforce than ever before.'"

Then Pace and Lucey sniped, "The increase is due to population growth — and not something Trump can credit to any of his policies."

Never mind that food stamp use has declined. It's just population increase. Don't credit President Trump for the lowest percentage of unemployment in nearly five decades.

"Reporters." I can tell whom they rooted for in 2016.

The shouts of USA! USA! USA! made history but not the AP account.

The press accounts of his speech were deliriously Democrat. They play a game of how they can belittle him. They brought down Sarah Palin and still think they can bring him down after four years of his drubbing them.

We have the worst press, don't we?

Dominic Patten of Deadline Hollywood tried his hand at political reporting in a story headlined, "Donald Trump’s Long Second State Of The Union Rises In Ratings Over 2018 and Obama."

Instead of writing about ratings, he began, "Donald Trump never mentioned the unprecedented government shutdown nor the Democrats’ newly installed majority in the House of Representatives in his second official State of the Union address last night, but it sure felt like he talked about everything else."

By unprecedented, he meant 10th time.

After six paragraphs of nonsense ("CBS was the top of the toppermost, to paraphrase Beatle John Lennon, in the early results") Patten finally got around to news writing.

"In metered markets ratings for the 9–10:30 PM ET speech CBS had a 4.6/7, taking the number #1 spot among the broadcast networks away from usual top dog NBC. The Comcast-owned net was in second place with a 4.5/7, while ABC got a 4.1/7 and FOX snared a 3.1/5," he wrote.

"With individual rises for all of the Big 4, last night’s SOTU was up overall just over 10% in the early metrics from Trump’s official inaugural address to the House members and the Senate of January 30 last year.

"A rare feat for any President this deep into his term, the rise also shows that Trump will eclipse not only his own first SOTU and his 2017 address to Congress but also the second SOTU of his predecessor Barack Obama as well.

"Over 11 outlets, the 44th POTUS pulled in 30.9 million for his January 25, 2011 speech – a number Trump looks likely to beat with ease when the final numbers come in later today."

But as AP would put it, "The increase is due to population growth — and not something Trump can credit to any of his policies."


The power of the press is built on straight news reporting. When you try to turn a good day for President Trump into a bad day, you discredit yourself and discount the impact of one of his bad days.

News organizations need to play the long game.


  1. Shut up!
    One of them may actually do this!!
    Never interrupt an enemy who is effectively destroying himself.

  2. Gosh, a thousand layoffs in the press lately, people turning off their TV's cancelling cable, newspaper readership in the dump, certain so called journalist activist making fools of themselves for all to witness on air, yes they are destroying themselves.

    1. When somebody tells me they don't like me and effectively don't want my business, I listen.

  3. I've seen this before, Don, from long ago.

    It was Fall of 1980, and I was a young Air Force airman. None of the guys in the barracks wanted to watch the Carter-Reagan debate, so I went to one of my favorite watering holes a few miles from the base, an old Howard Johnson's.

    It was one of my favorite watering holes because the barmaid was gorgeous. I was in my twenties; I think she was probably about thirty. Long, beautiful brunette hair. Nice smile. We never spoke, other than ordering stuff. She was all business, and did not give off the vibe of someone who welcomed flirting, so I never flirted.

    So I ordered my fish sandwich and beer and watched the debate sitting at the bar. When the barmaid had a moment or two, she watched it as well.

    When the debate was over, the anchor asked a journalist -- if memory serves, and it may not, it was Sander Vanocur -- who won?

    The journalist replied, "Well, the experts think that President Carter won on substance, but Reagan won on style."

    The barmaid and I both looked at each other, and simultaneously shook our heads, "No."

    So it wasn't just me.

    They were just as biased, but more subtle about it.

    1. Vanocur covered Kennedy under Huntley-Brinkley. Pretty old school. Anderson forced Carter into that debate and it was a huge mistake. Gave Reagan a landslide

    2. And yes, old Sander was biased

    3. Vanocur was the one who asked Nixon in the famous first debate with Kennedy about Ike's comment that if you gave him a week, he might think of something Nixon did. It WAS a cruel jab by Ike, who thought Nixon wasn't doing enough to defend the administration. But as has beennoted, they were just as biased then, but more skilled at hiding it.

  4. The newspapers are paying by the word for reporting like that.

  5. I watched that and yes, Carter made an ass of himself as usual.

  6. When I was a kid my grandfather used to tongue his dentures. It looked exactly like what Pelosi was doing behind PDJT.

  7. Sad that only about 10% of the country saw the speech on those 4 stations. Maybe 20% counting other outlets. Of course I didn’t see it either, but am reading and staying informed other ways. I plan to watch it on the net. Doubt many of the 80% who did it watch give a rip.

  8. I have a shirt that reads "I don't watch CNN for the same reason I don't eat out of my toilet"! I really should change it to MSM so the ALL will be included!

  9. Just accept that it is Dem media.

    However, we don't need to accept that all the colleges have an "open secret" discrimination against hiring pro-life Republicans. They should be sued, and lose, for discrimination. And lose their tax-exempt status.