AG Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, could really stand to get a clue. Nepotism shields you from certain realities, I suppose, but considering how not everyone in the dead profession of journalism had mommies and daddies pave the way from them and still hold the same arrogant and toxic beliefs, that's probably not the only factor at play when he spewed patronizing nonsense to the US President:
Times publisher asks Trump to reconsider anti-media rhetoric
The "enemy of the people" accusation from the president is entirely justified. The press has forgotten about the people for a very long time.
The only people that register is Donald Trump and anyone who might get rid of him.
I am not surprised Trump called the press names when we have the New York Times publish editorials like this one:
Is Mr. Trump Nuts?
Are you, Mr. Sulzberger? Are you nuts? Do you like someone to ask in public whether or not you are insane? Should we replace your name before nattering like that editorial did:
Is Donald Trump mentally fit to be president of the United States? It’s an understandable question, and it’s also beside the point.
You slander a man in public without a shred of proof (because if you had it, you would have gleefully used it), and then you have a patronizing "talk" with him?
I don't care about the US president one way or another. He can take care of himself, and fires back like nobody's business.
But that condescending lecture goes to the moral sickness that destroyed journalism:
Sulzberger, who succeeded his father as publisher on Jan. 1, said his main purpose for accepting the meeting was to “raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.”
Do not blame the president for your own oblivious malice. Do not blame him for thinking after twenty years that the press has the same power and clout it did, and then use an outdated model to compete in a new world where communications was finally liberated.
You bully and pick fights with people. You may try to parse your words, but you called him insane in an alleged news product, and now you are going to lecture him how to address you in public.
Shut up, Mr. Sulzberger. You have absolutely no moral authority to talk. Know your place, sir.
But the Guardian has a very interesting paragraph:
The exchange came the morning after the Washington Post’s executive editor, Marty Baron, told an audience in Annapolis, Maryland five journalists shot dead at the offices of the Capital Gazette newspaper last month were “friends of the people”.
“Not one of them deserved to be seen as an enemy,” Baron said.
To use a tragedy to distort truth and then manipulate it to make yourself as martyr is unconsciouable.
No, those journalists weren't soldiers in some war for truth. They are of the same ilk as students who were killed in their schools by evil individuals who do not care about big issues or social justice, but because they had a personal beef with someone and threw a very wicked temper tantrum.
Mass murderers don't shoot up schools to protest the educational system, and what happened in Maryland had nothing to do with a war on journalism.
This was a beef from an arrogant and malicious boor who threw a bloody fit because he didn't get what he wanted. The end. These weren't Daniel Pearls or Chauncey Baileys. No one deserves to be murdered, but don't spin this temper tantrum with a weapon hoping all that spinning makes a halo. Enough.
But a newspaper publisher attempting to lord over a president is very telling. Mr. Sulzberger certainly has nerve considering how much blood many journalists have on their hands, which I have recounted in my books and on this website.
If you are expecting a president to drool all over you in public, you really don't know understand the role the press is supposed to play in society. If you are getting death threats because of what the president has said about you, be aware he has gotten them as well on the account of you pondering if he is insane.
I remember a time when there was good journalism out there. No one was calling people insane. No publisher was swaggering up to a world leader to lecture him by telling him what to say and what to think. No one was coming up with vast conspiracy theories...although the press's current bigoted obsession with Russia being some sort of saboteurs is truly one for the books: you have the US having unprecedented economic growth, stealth maneuvering that is stymieing Russia and its allies power base, re-establishing America as a superpower, and you are babbling some Reefer Madness-type propaganda about Russian meddling? Who are these Russians who are doing this meddling, exactly? Boris and Natasha? What kind of meddling is that? Did those knuckleheaded Ruskies get the memo that they are supposed to make the US weaker, not untouchable?
If the New York Times realized that there are 7.4 billion people on the planet and stopped their monomania, they would stop being obsessed with Trump. They would have seen all these amazing changes happening in the world. They would see simmering problems that needed attention for a long time.
They would actually see this world. Not just one grain. But a planet with 7.4 billion grains.
They can't. That's why they lost the war and succumbed to the lies they believed and are still refusing to let go...