I guess I’m a hyper partisan too, then, because I think giving (yet more) free positive press to the wannabe-dictator that’s at this moment trying to undermine democracy, foment insurrection, and erode public health is a fucking terrible idea.
Timex
3615
You think that it’s gonna convince lots of folks to suddenly support Trump?
Or that Trump’s insane cult is reading the Washington Post?
“There’s nothing bad about this and it’s perfectly reasonable and thinking otherwise just shows that there is something wrong with you,” is a response I confess I didn’t expect to see. Thus normalization.
Normalizing insurrectionist white nationalists for fun and profit, and it’s working too. Clicks for the click god!
I didn’t realize “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was a statement of intent.
He’s actively trying to destroy the Republic, but, sure, let’s talk about all the good things he did.
Cancelling my Post subscription now.
BUT GUYSSSS YOU AREN’T BEING PERFECTLY LOGICAL FACT MACHINES
Timex
3620
Did you actually read the article in question? Or, like most here, are you going off of a screenshot of the title of the article, that someone posted on Twitter?
It’s the latter, right?
But you are going to cancel your support for the best investigative journalists in the world, because they MAY have allowed someone to write an article that offends your sensibilities. Not that it’s actually factually inaccurate or anything (summer of the opinions are questionable, but like crazy stuff pushed by the far right). Or that is written by Trump sycophants (it’s not).
Your attitude here drives media to become increasingly biased echo chambers. That’s not good. Even if you think that “your side” is right… It’s not always right. And if you are never exposed to anything that presents an idea that’s contrary to your existing worldview, then your worldview will become increasingly based on myopia.
Yup. Though really, the Trump thing is secondary for me to the dangerous, irresponsible reporting they’ve been doing on delta and vaccination lately. I find myself in the peculiar situation of wanting to support good journalism and not being able to find any. We really are fucked, aren’t we?
I’m a fan of the Guardian. They’re not perfect, but they don’t publish op-eds by Thiessen and other fascists on every other day.
Or, to summarize: “Normalizing authoritarianism, how does it work?”
Nobody’s going to be perfect, of course, but there’s a certain standard of doing more good than harm and I’m not sure any American media outlet is meeting that standard at the moment. Thanks for the suggestion.
I particularly enjoy the implicit “both sides” argument, ignoring the fact that one “side” is a white nationalist authoritarian movement committed to overthrowing democracy. It’s not like they’re even being coy about it anymore. Reading different good-faith perspectives is important, but this is not that. And being willing to pretend bad faith is good faith for the sake of argument is exactly what got us here.
Timex
3625
Yeah, that’s not what that article did.
Again, I’m guessing you didn’t read it either?
Or, to summarise the summary. “We like our echo chamber. Righteousness feels soooo good!”
Timex
3627
For those who are basing their opinion of the article on a screenshot of the title from Twitter, in going to help you out
Donald Trump will not be remembered by most Americans as a great president.
An informal survey of historians this summer ranked him as the fourth-worst chief executive, ahead of only Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan. He lost the popular vote in both the election he won and the election he lost. He was the first president to be impeached twice, as well as the first to be impeached after he left office. And by the time his supporters had finished storming the Capitol in a furious attempt to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory in January, only 38 percent of Americans approved of the job Trump did — with 52 percent “strongly” disapproving.
But four years is a long time, and presidents have an enormous amount of power. So even an unpopular chief executive who insists he actually won a losing reelection bid can’t make the wrong call on everything. Now that Trump has been out of office for six months, Outlook asked experts and writers who mostly disagreed with him — often vehemently — to look back on what he got right.
That’s the intro to the piece. You’ll note, this is not a pro trump piece, written by Trump supporters. This is actually stuff written by staunch trump critics.
In every single one, they are at least half criticism of trump.
The point isn’t praise for Trump, but rather a selection of, “hey, even though trump was the one who did this thing, the thing itself is actually good, and it should continue.”
Now, in some of those cases, I actually don’t agree that they were good. But most of the folks here seem to be basing their opinions on an incorrect view of what the article actually says.
I wonder, what is the journalistic public service value of a series of ten articles on the things Trump got right? Can anyone articulate it? I don’t mean defend doing it on the grounds that he must have gotten some things right. I mean, explain what service the fourth estate is providing to the public good by such an article.
I think the only possible answer is to push back against the idea that he is irredeemably bad; that is, to normalize him. I’m open to other explanations, though. Is there e.g. something he got right that nobody else would have gotten right, some lesson for everyone else?
Hey, I nominate you! Want to give it a try?
Hey, someone that knows how normalization works!
I anxiously await constructive replies to this well-articulated question.
The very first link I posted made it clear that these were articles by people who did not like or support Trump. That is not a mystery to anyone in this conversation. It is you who don’t seem to actually grasp what people are saying.
KevinC
3633
@Timex, the above is what I was going to ask. I think the assessment in the text you quoted that even an unpopular president can’t be wrong about everything is certainly true, but I’m scratching my head as to what purpose the piece serves. Note that I haven’t canceled my WaPo subscription or anything, but I’m a bit baffled by this.
Trump and his party are still trying to destroy free elections in this country. I don’t think that’s hyperbole to say that. It’s not an act in the past where we have some distance to it, it’s happening right now. In the context of that, what is the purpose of this piece? Surely he wasn’t wrong on everything, so what is the point? Why are we writing and publishing an article on that now?
I don’t think anyone is angry that Trump got a few things right. It’s just the context and the why part that have people here upset.
To summarize my feelings, I would say I don’t find anything about the piece newsworthy at all. And if it’s not newsworthy, then why write it and run it given the context of where we’re at right now?
I mean, thank god right? Imagine a Trump that waged war on vaccines they way he waged war on masks and imagine where we’d be.
I know you know this but, of course, the answer is “clicks.” Who cares about the public good when there’s advertiser cash to be had? It shot immediately to #1 on their most-read, because it’s a great way to generate outrage. Well, mission accomplished, but instead of “clicks” from me they get no money for a few months (though, again, the whole series of “vaccines don’t work” headlines is my bigger gripe), because there’s no sense rewarding bad behavior.
