Some New York Times readers expected the paper to tone down its “nuclear assault” against President-elect Donald Trump after the election. No one really believed that the venom spewed by Times journalists would dissipate completely, but perhaps some moderation is in order for the sake of our country.
However, post election, the Times continues unbridled attacks in its reporting and certainly in its opinion pieces. In previous hard-fought elections Americans and the press joined together to support the new president.
Some foolishly expected the paper to temper its perspective. In the eyes of many readers it is not being fair and balanced in its criticism of Donald Trump. Reporters and columnists constantly rehash Trump’s alleged “crimes against humanity” during his campaign. And they suggest that his transition is flawed in any number of ways- not enough women, not enough minorities, too right-wing, too slow, etc.
It’s obvious that the Times, as a media organization, wants to do everything possible to sabotage the new president, a tactic that is un-American in the minds of some. Those that side with the Times are quick to recount comments by Mitch McConnell who indicated that his goal was to defeat Barack Obama. This perspective was not conducive to comity in government either. But the comment was made by a politician in the opposition party, not a media outlet protected by the First Amendment. This protection is designed to ensure that the media is able to keep Americans informed.
Charles Blow, a Times columnist, has taken his responsibilities to a new level. Basically he’s declared war on Donald Trump. Trump received over 60 million votes and easily won the majority of the Electoral College, while Blow is using his position at the Times to express his darkest personal views.
Surely the Times staff has been influenced by the outgoing president who promised Trump a smooth transition and hope that he would be successful. Shortly after doing so, the former president kicked off a final world tour where he tried to convince anybody who would listen that he’s been a great president. Interestingly he took the opportunity to bash Trump, a serious misstep by a lame duck president. Most previous ex-presidents have been respectful of their successors, not so for the lame duck.
So it’s no wonder that Blow started to blowviate. His column on November 26 is horrifying. Blow indicated, “I will say proudly and happily that I was not present at the [meeting between Times senior people and Trump].” The meeting was requested by Trump to bury the hatchet. At it the president-elect backed off on a number of extreme positions he took during the campaign. We should be thankful that Blow was excluded by Times management. He probably would have come to blows with Trump [pun intended].
Blow’s column was particularly harsh as he gives Trump no chance to redeem himself from some of the more outrageous comments and juvenile tweets during his march to the presidency. Yet Blow should be reminded that Trump is not a mass murderer, nor did he commit any crimes against humanity or any crimes like some of the people Blow has supported.
Blow threw the book at Trump- he’s a xenophobe and a misogynist, a liar, an egomaniac, a future torturer [of Gitmo terrorists], unrepentant for all his sins, etc.?
The columnist said there was no chance that he would ever believe Trump because he is “an aberration and an abomination who is willing to do and say anything- no matter whom it aligns you with and whom it hurts- to satisfy [his] ambition.” Frankly most Americans believe this description aptly describes all politicians. Let’s not forget the Clintons in this regard.
In the end Blow promises with all his heart and soul to work to destroy Trump.
Wow! How could one man hate another without any evidence that he committed crimes? To reiterate, this type of characterization of another is usually directed at someone who commits an egregious offense. How about it Charles, don’t you think you’re overreacting?
There is another issue that offends even those of us who didn’t vote for Trump, but want to give him a chance to succeed. Times personnel has not been balanced in its reporting of political events. Hillary Clinton and her husband have been at the epicenter of numerous scandals over their 30+ years of public life. Real crimes and lies have hung over this power couple since they entered politics. I cannot recall any outrage expressed by Charles Blow in these matters.
Blow thinks he is superior to all those to whom he preaches. Perhaps the Times encourages its columnists to have a god-complex and to help all of us who can’t think for ourselves. Plus it’s good for circulation to be controversial. It might make sense for someone of authority to inform Blow that it is possible for our new president to rise above his ambition and exaggerated self-image. We will never know unless we give him a chance. And by the way he won the election fair and square.