All errors should be reported to

Monday, August 05, 2019

Media blames Trump. Nobody cares

Margaret Sullivan, media columnist for the world's richest man's newspaper, the Washington Post, is upset because two mass shootings this weekend did not instantly result in the end of private gun ownership. Her solution is to amp up the hysteria of an already hysterical media coverage to 11.

She wrote a column, "The media’s by-the-numbers coverage of gun massacres must change."

Of course it should change and I will offer my suggestions later.

But she was not asking the media to change its advocacy reporting. She wants the media to double down.

Sullivan's premise is shaky.

She wrote, "If journalism is supposed to be a positive force in society — and we know it can be — this is doing no good. Nothing changes. If anything, the pace of these tragedies is on the rise, as Saturday’s El Paso massacre, so quickly followed by the one Sunday near Dayton, Ohio, seemed to prove."

Who said "journalism is supposed to be a positive force in society"?

That isn't the deal. Newspaper readers want newspapers to deliver factual stories without bias.

Instead, writers hassle them with a bunch of half-baked social justice nonsense that seems to change on a whim. We went from gay marriage to transgendered bathrooms to lesbians being told they must date transgendered women.

And the baker who was forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding thought he had it bad.

Sullivan's question on this particular day was "Can the news media really go on a righteous crusade about gun laws — or about identifying white supremacy — while maintaining their roles as truth-tellers?"

The answer is no.

But that does not stop them.

The media has labeled as racist the supporters of every Republican president since Nixon. The word racist and the phrase white supremacy are meaningless because like the boy who cried wolf, the media keeps repeating it.

Sullivan said gun tragedies are a curse. She asked, "Can the news media manage to become part of the solution to this mind-numbing curse?"

Again, the news media cannot be of any use because it has tried to do this for decades to no avail. The only change is people no longer trust the media.

Americans will not give up their guns. They will give up their newspapers. Gladly. It is not because of reports of bad news but because of bad reports of the news.

E.W. Scripps and William Randolph Hearst were 19th century newspaper moguls. Scripps chose as his motto, "Give light and the people will find their own way."

Hearst had a different approach. He sent artist-correspondent Frederic Remington to Cuba in 1897 to depict a war that never materialized.

Bored, Remington telegraphed Hearst, “There is no trouble here. There will be no war. I wish to return.”

Hearst wired back, “Please remain. You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war.”

And Hearst did.

Starting a war is easy. Waging them is heart-rending. Joseph Medill of the Chicago Tribune was an ardent advocate of Lincoln in 1860 and the civil war.

But in 1864, Medill led a delegation to Washington where they met with the president. Medill's chief complaint was the high draft quota Lincoln set for Illinois. Lincoln was having none of this.

Lincoln said, “And you, Medill, are acting like a coward. You and your Tribune have had more influence any paper in the Northwest in making this war. You can influence great masses, and yet you cry to be spared at a moment when the cause is suffering. Go home and send us those men.”

What Sullivan suggested is nothing new. But in the 21st century it has largely been ineffective because people can now see through the bias, thanks to other sources for the news.

The most effective way to make change is to report straight-forward what happened. Who, what, when, where, how and why are the most powerful questions a reporter can ask because the answers to those questions provide 90% of the facts.

And the facts matter more than anything.

The time has come to change the coverage of tragedies because the way the press covers it now doesn't cut it. Instantly blaming President Trump doesn't cut it. Jumping to conclusions about the perpetrator doesn't cut it. Allowing Democrats to seize the situation to advance gun control or (whatever they happen to be peddling at the moment) doesn't cut it.

Just tell the truth.

Americans tune all this out. Not every American. The yahoos still butt-hurt over the 2016 election gobble this up but the rest of us long ago soured on the press cries of wolf.

Politically, the butt-hurt yahoos do not matter. President Trump won without them.

Elections are arithmetic. To win in 2020, Democrats must subtract from President Trump enough supporters to cover enough states to win in the Electoral College.

But biased media coverage and the constant attacks have annealed his supporters to Donald John Trump, and added millions more.

So let Sullivan and the rest double down. I don't care. Do U?

If they wanted us to care, they would have amended their ways long ago.


  1. Meanwhile the Fake News Media is silent about mass shootings in Chicago like the latest Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

    1. Similarly, the largest mass murder in Japan since World War II happened about a couple weeks ago. Thirty-five people were killed. The media here gave it the barest minimum of coverage because there was no way they could use it to push their usual agenda in the aftermath of mass killings.

    2. It was so bad in Chicago over the weekend the trauma center stopped taking any new casualties.

    3. Here's a site that tracks Chicago's Crime stats -- daily, weekly, monthly, yearly -- and they're not good.

    4. Just to clarify: One trauma center (out of five) was maxed out and went into "bypass". That is certainly bad enough, but every hospital has mass casualty plans and exercises.
      I'm still trying to find out if our military sends interns to Chicago for trauma training.

  2. no one cares because it was so predictable, followed by the mandatory demands for more money.

  3. OR, you could kill a commee for mommee.

  4. I hated her in The Wizard of Oz. Dat bitch gave me nightmares.

    1. That was Margaret Hamilton my pretty...

    2. Ja, I’s Bad Pun Monday...

  5. You are right - I don't care one bit. In fact, I dig my heels in even harder.

  6. Well the shooter in Ohio was a Warren supporter
    Dem. El Paso shooter was a Dem too GP got whacked at Fakebook for announcing that on the Fakebook site and he was a DEM white supremacist.
    His writings resembled A. Hitler who was a Socialist/supremacist-kind of like Bernie..

    1. The media should call for outlawing democrats. They spew hate and incite murder.

  7. My wife is a news junkie, and this morning she asked me about all these shootings. She wasn't talking about mass shootings, just the local random everyday murder. In the Trump era the news highlights the negative, and we can't celebrate when the President and Melania 'hit one over the fence' as happened on D-day and with Queen Elizabeth. Final result, who needs to be depressed every morning. It doesn't pay to tune in, so more Americans are tuning out. They aren't even excited about the latest Trump scandal, only the ball scores and maybe the weather. You don't have to pay money to get this, or even listen to the commercials.

  8. The media are 'truth tellers"? When did that happen. I must have missed the memo.

  9. More people are shot in a month in Chicago than were shot in El Paso and Dayton. The difference it happens EVERY MONTH in Chicago and both the victims and the perpetrators are black so the MSM doesn't care.

    1. The MSM cares when non-blacks kill blacks. Otherwise silence.


  10. Does the US have the most mass murders? The study this is based on seems to be deficient.

    More here:

    Neither shooter this weekend failed to pass the background check, but in Ohio the killer, when he was a 16/17 years old, was suspended from school in 2012 for having a hit list and rape list. The police were notified but he was let back into school over the protests of some parents. If that is correct, why wasn't he on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, Several of the mass shooters, 3 that I know of before these attacks, were never placed in the system so they were allowed to legally purchase. So why have these laws if they are not enforced as intended.
    The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U.S.C. 921, et seq., establishes the following categories of persons who are prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm:
    Any person pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g) or (n) who—
    1) has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (note this; any crime, in any court IF the person could have been sentenced to > 1 year even if given probation - loss of 2nd Amendment rights - Al)
    2) is a fugitive from justice
    3)is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
    has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution (CO theater and VA Tech shooting - Al)
    4)is an illegal or unlawful alien or a non-immigrant alien (with certain exceptions)
    5)has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions (TX Church shooting-Al)
    6) having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship
    7) s subject to a domestic violence protection order that meets certain requirements
    8) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
    9) is under indictment for or has been charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

    .I could not find where juvenile crimes will be entered into the NICS and followed into adulthood.

    1. And yet that could be a gun law I am inclined to support.
      Never have I heard a dem propose such a thing. Of course it fails the first test of a dem gun law, does it impact the law abiding gun owners while doing nothing to keep guns from criminals.

    2. Only law pertaining to 2nd Amendment Right neccessary:

      Eliminate Gun-Free Zones.

      Effective means for this:

      1. Absolute civil liability upon those who possess legal control of publicly accessable areas.

      2. Liability insurers!!! Have at it!!!

      That is all.

  11. As I've said elsewhere, if journalists take sides, what's the point in reading their work? We already know what they will say, so why buy the paper or watch the channel? These people are not only profoundly stupid about policy and politics, they don't even understand their own profession and business.

    1. The moment they take sides they cease being journalists.

      The op-ed page is now page one.

  12. who, what, where, when; and how -- these are facts.
    "why", the most important issue most of the time, is an opinion, whenever we deal with humans.
    "Why" is never a "fact".
    We need more clarity about the differences between facts and opinion.
    People are too often looking to confuse their opinions with "facts" -- and look for those real facts which seem to support their opinions.

    1. Why = motive, purpose, intent.

      How = What + When + Where + (Whom).

      Why requires person intent.

      How does not require person.

      How only requires: What + When + Where + (Whom).

      Thus, Why is seen as person intent.

      Opinion is one person claiming to know another person's intent.

      Pose question: How?

      Question How avoids opinion answer.

      Question: Why? is always request for person intent. Thus, only person intending can answer. All other person attempting to answer are false. Thus, opinion = false, always.

      True is not elusive.

      True is unescapable.

      True is real.

      Opinion is unreal.

      Disregard unreal.

  13. But, Donald Trump did tell people to go out and hurt others, to rise up against their leaders. Oh, wait, sorry that was the Democrats message to the Antifa.

  14. The media has labeled as racist the supporters of every Republican president since Nixon.

    Since Goldwater, which is ironic because LBJ was an old segregationist and he used the N-word a lot. Democrats don't want to talk about LBJ's racism. Or Truman's, FDR's, or Wilson's. But they will pore thru 1000s of hours of Nixon's tapes listening for a racial slur.

    After Oswald transformed JFK into a saint it was nearly a decade before anyone could say anything bad about him. But those Irish Catholics boys from Hyannisport weren't paragons of virtue. Is it inconceivable that they might have uttered an occasional racial epithet?

    JFK was a sailor. Did he talk like one too?