Complicity or Complacency?

Complicity or Complacency?

With the spate of White House ‘tell-alls” decrying the deteriorated health of former President Joe Biden, the more compelling question is why wasn’t much of this detected and disclosed by the WHPress Corps when it was happening.

Sure.. we all saw the President’s awkward gait; and his tumble up the steps of AF1 and down on the stage at the Air Force Academy; we all were witness to the debate debacle.

But – as a former member of the press corps in the days of CBS’ Dan Rather and ABC’s Sam Donaldson, I don’t think those correspondents would have been so forgiving to ignore the patently evident signs of physical and mental deterioration.

Mark Barbaks column (reposted here) makes the case that hiding presidential illnesses is not a new phenomenon. What seems disingenuous now are the reporters who covered the WH expressing surprise at just how bad things really were.

In a business which is based on ardent competition, where currying sources is the #1 priority, and in an era where there are more platforms and media companies dueling for scoops, was the ignorance of this president’s poor health due to the complicity of WH reporters choosing silence in order not to rock the boat, or not to jeopardize their standing in the WH Press Office, or due to laziness and complacency?

Reporters, anchors, hosts and pundits who postulate today but who said nothing while the story was actually happening are disappointing and doing a dishonor to their profession.

Health Lies at the White House – A long and rich history of misleading the nation

Another masterful column from Mark Barakak (LA Times) about the history of medical lies and coverups at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Marks’s words absolutely deserve to be shared.

It’s not just Biden. There’s a history of presidential health cover-ups

By Mark Z. Barabak
ColumnistFollow
May 21, 2025 3 AM PT


Far from transparent, the White House allows a president to hide in plain sight.
Biden is just the latest to be protected by family and his political inner circle.
Suddenly, it’s 2024 all over again.
Once more we’re litigating Joe Biden’s catatonic debate performance, his lumbering gait, his moth-eaten memory and his selfish delusion he deserved a second term in the White House while shuffling through his ninth decade on earth.
Biden’s abrupt announcement he faces an advanced form of prostate cancer has only served to increase speculation over what the president’s inner circle knew, and when they knew it.
“Original Sin,” a book by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, published this week, is chock-full of anecdotes illustrating the lengths to which Biden’s family and palace guard worked to shield his mental and physical lapses from voters.
Advertisement
John Robert Greene is not at all surprised.
“It’s old news, hiding presidential illness,” said Greene, who’s written a shelf full of books on presidents and the presidency. “I can’t think of too many … who’ve been the picture of health.”
Before we go further, let’s state for the record this in no way condones the actions of Biden and his political enablers. To be clear, let’s repeat it in capital letters: WHAT BIDEN AND HIS HANDLERS DID WAS WRONG.
But, as Greene states, it was not unprecedented or terribly unusual. History abounds with examples of presidential maladies being minimized, or kept secret.
Grover Cleveland underwent surgery for oral cancer on a yacht in New York Harbor to keep his condition from being widely known. Woodrow Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke, a fact covered up by his wife and confidants, who exercised extraordinary power in his stead.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy both suffered serious, chronic ailments that were kept well away from the public eye.
Those surrounding Ronald Reagan downplayed his injuries after a 1981 assassination attempt, and the Trump administration misled the public about the seriousness of the president’s condition after he was diagnosed with COVID-19 a month before the 2020 election.
The capacity to misdirect, in Biden’s case, or mislead, as happened under Trump, illustrates one of the magical features of the White House: the ability of a president to conceal himself in plain sight.
“When you’re in the presidency, there is nothing that you can’t hide for awhile,” Greene, an emeritus history professor at Cazenovia College, said from his home in upstate New York. “You’ve got everything at your disposal to live a completely hidden double life, if you want. Everything from the Secret Service to the bubble of the White House.”
Greene likened the Neoclassical mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to a giant fish bowl — one that is painted from the inside. It’s highly visible, but you can’t really see what’s happening in the interior.
That deflates the notion there was some grand media conspiracy to prop Biden up. (Sorry, haters.)
Yes, detractors will say it was plain as the dawning day that Biden was demented, diminished and obviously not up to the job of the presidency. Today, Trump’s critics say the same sort of thing about him; from their armchairs, they even deliver quite specific diagnoses: He suffers dementia, or Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease.
That doesn’t make it so.
“It’s a very politicized process. People see what they want to see,” said Jacob Appel, a professor of psychiatry and medical education at the Icahn School of Medicine in New York City, who’s writing a book on presidential health.
“You can watch videotapes of Ronald Reagan in 1987,” Appel said, “and, depending on your view of him. you can see him as sharp and funny as ever, or being on the cusp of dementia.” (Five years after leaving the White House, Reagan — then 83 — announced he was in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease.)
To an uncomfortable degree, those covering the White House — and, by extension, the public they serve — are forced to rely on whatever the White House chooses to reveal.
“I don’t have subpoena power,” Tapper told The Times’ Stephen Battaglio, saying he would have eagerly published the details contained in his new book had sources been willing to come forth while Biden was still in power. “We were just lied to over and over again.”
It hasn’t always been that way.
In September 1955, during his first term, President Dwight D. Eisenhower suffered a heart attack while on a golf vacation in Denver. “”It was sudden,” said Jim Newton, an Eisenhower biographer. “One minute he’s fine and the next minute he was flat on his back, quite literally.”
The details surrounding Eisenhower’s immediate treatment remain a mystery, though Newton suggests that may have had more do with protecting his personal physician, who misdiagnosed the heart attack as a bout of indigestion, than a purposeful attempt to mislead the public.
From then on, the White House was forthcoming — offering daily reports on what Eisenhower ate, his blood pressure, the results of various tests — to a point that it embarrassed the president. (Among the information released was an accounting of Ike’s bowel movements.)
“They were self-consciously transparent,” Newton said. “The White House looked to the Wilson example as something not to emulate.”
Less than 14 months later, Eisenhower had sufficiently recovered — and voters had enough faith in his well-being — that he won his second term in a landslide.
But that 70-year-old example is a notable exception.
As long as there are White House staffers, campaign advisers, political strategists and family members, presidents will be surrounded by people with an incentive to downplay, minimize or obfuscate any physical or mental maladies they face while in office. (Italics, mine, PS)
All we can do is wait — years, decades — for the truth to come out. And, in the meantime, hope for the best.

Scary! When a judge rules against a newspaper’s right to print an opinion story!

Judge Orders Mississippi Newspaper to Remove Editorial, Alarming Press Advocates

The owner of The Clarksdale Press Register said he planned to challenge a judge’s order against an editorial that criticized city officials.

A brick building with a black-and-white sign saying “Press Register.”
“I’ve been in this business for five decades and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” 
Wyatt Emmerich, the president of Emmerich Newspapers, which owns The Press Register in Clarksdale, Miss., said of a judge’s order.

By Michael Levenson {{<— New York Times reporter}}

Feb. 19, 2025  5:54 p.m. ET

A Mississippi judge on Tuesday issued a temporary restraining order requested by the city of Clarksdale requiring a local newspaper to remove a critical editorial from its website, a move that alarmed press advocates.

By Wednesday, the newspaper, The Clarksdale Press Register, had removed the editorial from its website. But Wyatt Emmerich, the president of Emmerich Newspapers, which owns The Press Register, said he planned to challenge the judge’s order at a hearing next week.

“I’ve been in this business for five decades and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” Mr. Emmerich said in an interview, adding that the judge had targeted “an editorial that is pretty plain vanilla, criticizing the City Council for not sending out the approporate notices.”

The Press Register, which dates to 1865 and serves about 7,750 readers, published the editorial on its website on Feb. 8 under the headline, “Secrecy, deception erode public trust.”

The editorial criticized officials in Clarksdale, a city of about 14,000 residents near the Arkansas border, for what it said was their failure to notify the news media before they held a special meeting on Feb. 4, where they approved a resolution asking the Mississippi Legislature to impose a 2 percent tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco.

“This newspaper was never notified,” the editorial read. “We know of no other media organization that was notified.”

The editorial also questioned city officials’ interest in the resolution.

“Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kickback from the community?” it asked. “Until Tuesday we had not heard of any. Maybe they just want a few nights in Jackson to lobby for this idea — at public expense.”

Clarksdale’s Board of Mayor and Commissioners voted on Feb. 13 to sue the newspaper for libel, saying the city clerk had created a public notice for the Feb. 4 board meeting but forgot to email a copy of it to Floyd Ingram, the editor and publisher of The Press Register, as she usually does.

After the meeting, Mr. Ingram went to the clerk’s office, where the clerk apologized for not sending him the notice and gave him a copy of it and the resolution that had been approved, city officials said.

In their lawsuit against The Press Register, city officials said that efforts by the mayor, Chuck Espy, to lobby for the tax proposal in Jackson, the state capital, had been “chilled and hindered due to the libelous assertions and statements by Mr. Ingram.”

On Tuesday, Judge Crystal Wise Martin of the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Miss., granted the city’s request for a temporary restraining order and told the newspaper to remove the editorial from its “online portals” and to make it inaccessible to the public.

“The injury in this case is defamation against public figures through actual malice in reckless disregard of the truth and interferes with their legitimate function to advocate for legislation they believe would help their municipality during this current legislative cycle,” Judge Martin wrote.

Mr. Ingram referred questions on Wednesday to Emmerich Newspapers. Mr. Emmerich said the editorial was clearly free speech protected by the Constitution.

“I don’t know how they can argue that a critical editorial is interfering with their businesses in a country that has a First Amendment that protects our right to criticize the government,” he said. “That’s the very idea of what an editorial in a newspaper does.”

The city’s lawsuit was part of what Mr. Emmerich described as an ongoing feud between The Press Register and Mr. Espy. He said that the newspaper had irked the mayor and other officials by reporting on their increased compensation and other issues and that “they’ve been at us ever since.”

Mr. Espy, a Democrat, said that the increased compensation had “nothing do with” the city’s lawsuit against the newspaper and “its malicious lies.” He said the city had threatened to sue the newspaper in the past, forcing it to retract an article.

“The only thing we’re asking for in city government is to simply write the truth, good or bad,” Mr. Espy said. “And I’m very thankful that the judge agreed to impose a T.R.O. against a rogue newspaper that insisted on telling lies against the municipality.”

Adam Steinbaugh, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which supports free speech, criticized the city’s lawsuit, writing on social media that it was “wildly unconstitutional.”

He said that governments “can’t sue for libel” under New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark First Amendment decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964.

“Free-speech threats come from all corners of society, whether it’s the president of the United States or a mayor, and they come from all political parties,” Mr. Steinbaugh said in an interview on Wednesday. He said that once “we start eroding those rights, all other rights are threatened.”

Layne Bruce, executive director of the Mississippi Press Association, said he supported The Press Register’s right to publish the editorial and its effort to challenge the judge’s order.

“This is a rather astounding order,” he said, “and we feel it’s egregious and chilling and it clearly runs afoul of the First Amendment.”

OPINION — Why Give Absurdities Ink & Prominence?

Elon Musk owns a communications company (and so much more), and if he wants to promote an idea, surely he is free to do so. That’s the epitome of free speech…. Unchecked, unregulated, and uncensored.

And when he suggests that a media company’s employees deserve a “long prison sentence” for a story that he disagrees with, again, he is free to shout that from his platform and bask in the glow of his X echo chamber, maganified by the Prince of Mar-a-Lago.

Musk has long criticized CBS for a Kamala Harris interview during the November election. Most recently, following a critical story about Musk’s closure of USAID, the DOGE boss wrote, “60 Minutes are the biggest liars in the world! They engaged in deliberate deception to interfere with the last election. They deserve a long prison sentence.”

Seriously… “a long prison sentence” for? What would be the legal charge? What is the offense? What is the rationale, other than perhaps currying favor with prominent politicians? Evidently, Musk didn’t learn about the American value of free speech in his South African school system.

While Musk can and should be allowed to say anything, why does other media give him any credence by repeating his nonsensical mutterings?

Deciding what to include on any media platform is the province of editors who, one hopes, make their decisions based on what is newsworthy, the prominence of the person speaking, and the likelihood that what’s said will be impactful.

On any responsible calculus, in my nearly 50-year experience in media, I believe even repeating silly ideas or promoting individuals who are so out of touch with inherent American values is, in itself, irresponsible.

Just Because He Says It Doesn’t Make It True

In retaliation for not changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, a decision Present Trump appeared to make on the spur of the moment, the AP – the Associated Press – one of the world’s preeminent news services – is banned from covering the White House.

On what level does that form of censorship make any sense?

No one should ever have the sole authority to rename the map of the world.

And if a news organization pauses on accepting an unsubstantiated, unauthorized edict, it appears that our government has determined that failure to comply is a punishable offense.

Presidents once relied on news services to reach the people, but today, the White House and President Trump are their communications companies. They no longer need the media. This communications machine no longer faces the hurdle of a gatekeeper or fact checker interfering with the ‘company line.’ This media empire now reaches a global audience in the space of a nanosecond.

Not long ago, government-dictated media was considered propaganda.
Sure, there has been anger from the press corp, and even the appearance of moral and professional outrage, but then, crickets.

Encouraging or enabling any dictatorship or accepting muzzling is a frightening harbinger of what may come next.

MAGAnifying the News

Donald J. Trump to Anchor Nightly News Program MAGAnifying What Americans Need to Know

The White House Office of Publicity (WHOP) will soon announce the production and distribution of the Evening News with Donald J. Trump, (ENDJT), a 7-night-a-week strip show featuring America’s favorite President, Donald J. Trump, presenting the day’s news.

Mr. Trump will be both the Anchor and Managing Editor of the program that, like its closest model время (Vreyma), will run at varying lengths as determined by Mr. Trump in his personal assessment of the most important news of his administration.

Appearing as the most trusted man in America and the most successful media personality ever in his own right, Donald Trump delivering the news personally, and with his customary authenticity and empathy, is following in the footsteps of other iconic politicians whose distinctive voices penetrated deeply into the homes and lives of Americans at other times in our history. In eras past, the Little Flower and King Franklin informed, entertained, and delighted Americans with their radio programs providing humor, comfort, and reassurance during previous dark days in our history.

The Evening News with Donald J. Trump will MAGAnify the news of the day in a carefully curated program to explain and educate Americans about the important accomplishments of this administration. Even before its debut, it is already acclaimed as a WHOPping success and model for successive administrations.

There will be days when Mr. Trump will simultaneously appear as the nation’s cheerleader, advocate, blame assessor, and even the consoler-in-chief. When necessary, he will FIRE on-camera those who have failed their assignments (real or perceived) in his administration. When there is a gap in real news but still plenty of room for fake news, alternative facts, and speculation, audiences can count on the ENDJT to fill any silence with entertaining asides, especially whenever he goes off TelePrompTer, offering insights and opinions which are second to none.

Few personalities are more suited to presenting the complex News of The Day, much less giving commentary and perspective.

Few men have the clout of Mr. Trump, whose personal love for and friendship with world leaders, including Kim Jong Un, Bibi Netanyahu, Viktor Orbán, and ‘Uncle Vlad’ Putin, all of whom have repeatedly expressed such admiration for this American President. It’s expected that world leaders will clamor to take President Trump’s perfect phone calls live, responding jovially, and following his extemporaneous instructions for their domestic policies.

Domestically, the men and women of the Republican Party, from cabinet secretaries to congressmen (no longer woke-gender-corrected to include congresswomen) and even governors, who demonstrate over-the-top fealty to their President, will appear nightly to obsequiously offer eerie prayer and praise.

Nightly features on the faults and foibles of previous Democratic administrations, including Barack Hussein, Crooked Hillary, and Sleepy Joe, among so many others in state and local governments, will be highlighted.

Weather reports will be presented with Sharpie pens. Governor of Canada, and its former prime minister, Justin Trudeau, will report on lake-effect snowstorms and the Arctic Express.

Traffic will be reported by an avatar looking suspiciously like a Pete Buttigieg piñata.

Business news will feature real estate, hotel, and hospitality items.

Segments on cryptocurrency will feature reports from the President’s son, Barron.

A nightly special segment for hunting enthusiasts will tabulate the number of immigrant ICE roundups and deportations, presented using 3D colored graphics for both nationality and racial identification, and enabling audiences to see accomplishments of the administration’s #1 priority.

Also – in the wide world of sports and especially on multiple weekends each month, golf will delight duffers watching the President report from his links. Special offer coupons to selected courses owned by the Trump organization will be auctioned live to raise money for green maintenance.

Dr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (who has received a medical doctorate from Trump University and was awarded by Presidential Order) will take viewer call-ins on vaccines as well as a wide range of medical topics several nights each week. His segment will be sponsored by major pharmaceutical companies.

Style, beauty, and entertainment, as determined solely by Mr. Trump on the attractiveness of featured individuals (as compared to himself) and the measure of their anatomies, will delight and rivet audiences with their comparisons.

Social media posts will include specially created segments using the subscription model of OnlyFans.

The Evening News with Donald J. Trump may be expected to debut soon on selected broadcast and streaming platforms.

Is the Fentanyl Crisis a Red Herring?

Is U.S. drug treatment both so insufficient and inefficient that higher guacamole prices are the only solution to the Fentanyl crisis?

President Trump has claimed 3-hundred thousand (300,000) Americans die of fentanyl overdoses annually.

But – huh? A question: Where is this mountain of corpses? Is this certified by any coroner, anywhere?

The official number of deaths (73,654 in 2022) reportedly dropped in 2023, and the data from 2024 is not yet available.

So, a discrepancy prompts this question: Is the media buying and perpetuating this crisis without raising proper doubt and inquiry?

The second question?

And so, it is worth asking again: Is raising the cost of an avocado, much less disrupting world trade, sufficient to stem this epidemic?

Maybe a third question?

Is U.S. drug treatment both so insufficient and inefficient that higher guacamole prices are the only solution to the Fentanyl crisis?

It is an indisputable fact: There have been catastrophic drug epidemics in the United States dating back to the Civil War, featuring a rotating menu of morphine, heroin, cocaine, barbiturates, and marijuana, again and again, over and over.

Another fact, courtesy of AI: “The U.S. federal government spends significant amounts annually on drug treatment and substance abuse programs. Key figures include:
Federal Substance Use Treatment Spending: The federal government allocates over $1.1 billion annually for drug treatment programs, excluding spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs1.
Opioid Epidemic Funding: Congress has approved $10.6 billion in discretionary spending between 2017 and 2028 to combat the opioid epidemic, with $1.5 billion allocated in 2023 alone for the State Opioid Response program to expand treatment and recovery services3.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): In FY 2022, SAMHSA received $6.6 billion for substance use prevention and treatment activities, including $3.5 billion for block grants to states and territories7.
These figures highlight the multifaceted approach to addressing substance abuse through healthcare, prevention, and justice system initiatives.”

Let’s take a deeper dive into the avocado dip: Is the assertion that the only way to stave off the fentanyl crisis is to change world tariffs?

Is the fentanyl crisis being hyped for political gain?

Is there no better alternative to helping addicts than to penalize everyone’s wallets?

Is the administration selling a fear – and the media not investigating that sufficiently?

Those seem to be questions worth asking.

Is Success for An Audience of One Enough?

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt most likely impressed her most important audience, President Donald Trump, with her maiden appearance at the White House podium yesterday.

She was feisty, combative, unflappable, and stayed on point to the party line.
She bridged reporter’s questions to her talking points, regardless of whether those answers were either responses to the questions asked or satisfactory to the reporters at all. She pivoted when she deemed it necessary. She structured her responses using the boasts and bravado of her boss.

But was she as effective beyond the West Wing?

Her tonality was sharp. Her posture & body language are tight; some might say combative. Like it or not, those physical characteristics can set a negative tone for the relationship between the President and the press corps.

My question: is that the best way to begin? Is setting a tough tone even necessary? Certainly, the job of press secretary is akin to being a circus ringmaster where the lions, and tigers and bears have been let loose simultaneously. But are a whip and a chair the best tools to wield from arguably the most potent soap box in the world?

For Trump fans who dislike and distrust the ‘fake media,’ she undoubtedly scored high grades for putting and keeping the media hoard in its place. For Trump critics, she prompted recollections of other spokesperson failures, including Sean Spicer.

The press sectary’s job has never been ‘easy’ with a sophisticated press corps that has age, maturity, and usually decades-long experience in covering the nuances of DC politics. Ms. Leavitt is young and a relative newcomer, so it would be natural to expect a learning curve requiring a period of time. I’d suggest that the honeymoon window is open only a sliver and closing quickly.

While she has experience from the campaign, the open question will be how does that translate to prime time and for an audience beyond the President? Or, is she simply cannon fodder for Mr. Trump to carry his water until she has been rung out by a critical, disbelieving, and maybe even hostile audience?

Your thoughts?

President Trump’s Hiraeth

Again and again, Ameican’s are promised a return to a life, a universe, a world of glorious ‘agains.”
But, just when was this: again?

I want someone in the press to ask, when was ‘again’?

When was America strong, again?
Was that in the post-WW2 era when our military and nuclear might were unmatched? Again here certainly can’t be Vietnam… a war from which the President excused himself, and what’s more, we lost.
Was it 1959 when President Eisenhower warned of the unchecked military-industrial complex rampantly growing to unsustainable proportions?

Was when America safe, again?
It certainly couldn’t have been the 1960s and 70s which saw dramatically higher crime spikes. But maybe it was before cameras in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, among other cities showcased poverty and injustice directly into our living rooms, and Black Lives Matter was splashed on downtown DC streets?

Was safe again when people who made us uncomfortable were compelled to hide in the shadows?
Was that the 1950s and 60’s when sexual repression castigated fags, queers, and dykes in even the most polite conversations, if they were recognized at all? Sniggers and condemnations… Shall we return to that? Again?

Was safe before desegregation? Before the Freedom Rides? Before Selma and Montgomery? Before Little Rock? Or Boston even in the 1970s?
Before the riots of the late 1960s which burned American neighborhoods to ash? Before blood was spilled in the streets; when was that again?
Was that when America was safe? Or when white people felt safe?
Is that the ‘again’ to be sought?

When was America at peace, again? Surely not in my 7 decades of life… from Korea to the Iron Curtain, to the Bamboo Curtain, to Vietnam, to the innumerable battles and terror of the Middle East and the armaments provided by the U.S., Kosovo, to civil wars and revolutions (Argentina, the Congo, Sierra Leone, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Senegal), to the Iran Contra affair… and what about Afghanistan, Iraq? Kuwait? Wars all – again, and again.

AI calculates, “As of 2024, there are 56 ongoing conflicts worldwide, with 92 countries involved in conflicts outside their borders. This represents the highest number of countries engaged in conflict since World War II, highlighting the continued prevalence of armed conflicts in the modern era.” It calculates today 160,000 active duty military personnel are assigned to foreign posts in 80 countries at 750 bases. Again? Is that safe again?

So when was there peace, ‘again’?

When was America good, again? Was it again before the Poverty Program which lifted the living standard and fed so many impoverished Americans? Was it before a health safety net – perhaps before Medicare? Before LBJ? Certainly, it must have been before the Obama Affordable Care Act, but just when was it healthier, ‘again’?

Was America better before desegregation – in schools, hotels, restaurants, and public transport? Or even baseball? Surely, better must be before DEI – so what are we returning to, ‘again’?

Was America better and stronger in the world when U.S. corporations ran entire governments? When the CIA choose who would rule and who would fall in a coup? When we determined who would be bribed, regardless of the consequences to their citizens, but always to our advantage — think oil prices or bananas… and so much more. When was that ‘again’, Pax America?

And what about some of the poorest of the poor – the American farm worker? Is returning to the era of Harvest of Shame what is meant by again? When prices at the market were at a low because the pickers on American farms were treated as slaves.

Just when was ‘again’?

I am puzzled.

America is not a Norman Rockwell painting – a romanticized distortion of life years ago, a saccharin reminder of a supposedly gentler time that was never completely accurate but has become a political symbol of a supposedly better life then.

Thomas Wolfe wrote you can’t go home again for what was has surely changed and evolved, just as we have individually.

Is ‘again’ really better? Is ‘again’ even realistic?

Where is “again” anything more than a political rallying cry? And for what?

Is your again my again? And are you sure? I’m not.

Mr. Trump’s oft-repeated word ‘again’ is, still, once again, undefined, unasked, and unanswered.

Who in the media will ask, yea demand, and ask, and ask again until he defines his ‘again’… and then we can see if there is a consensus for that destination or if are we just being taken for a ride?

Quick! Multiple Choice Quiz

CNN management told their top journalists not to editorialize or ‘express outrage’ during the inauguration coverage.

What’s MOST wrong with this?

  1. CNN management had so little faith in the reporting skills of their journalists to be impartial observers and reporters that they needed to be muzzled by the bosses?
  2. CNN’s stable of journalists is so unprofessional and unskilled expecting to wax poetic and share their opinions under the guise of news coverage, and they didn’t know that’s not their responsibility?
  3. CNN ‘leaked’ their instructions from a presumably, professional and private meeting to curry favor with the new administration watchdogs, eager to pounce on any misstep or misdeed by a bona fide news organization?

From the NYPost story, “During the meeting, Thompson “made it clear that he did not want the coverage to relitigate the past,” according to Status reporter Oliver Darcy — an allusion to CNN’s historically hostile relationship with Trump.” (Italics mine)

What’s wrong with a historically hostile relationship between politics and the press? Did mean reporters hurt the feelings of the Trump 45? Did those nasties in the press room cause him a boo-boo for challenging his words and deeds?

And continuing from the Post, “Instead, he urged CNN staffers to focus on Trump’s second term and to be “open-minded” about the next four years.” Is that code for playing lovey-dovey or footsie from a corporate viewpoint?

It seems to me that a new cautiousness, perhaps a fear or threat of reprisal, and a growing timidity is setting the course for the next 4 years.

If the public prefers unchecked, unvarnished, unfiltered propaganda over the truth… that’s a dark choice.