Why the Tweets are Necessary and Will Continue

There is a huge difference between an adversarial press and overt hostility.

In one, objective gaps between SUBSTANTIAL observations about MEANINGFUL subjects are probed relentlessly.

In the latter, every issue must be framed negatively, and pursued compulsively regardless of consequence.

While I felt the press despised Trump (was it WaPo who called Trump vile in a counter-endorsement of Hillary?) I did not feel they were a HOSTILE FORCE, although VILE is not a description an adversarial press uses, IS IT?

And then Amanpour (net worth $12m and married to a Clinton Admin upper State Dept employee) vented hyperbolically about how sad her profession’s future was, heading for the ‘camps‘ (probably, however, Camp Eagle Hill, for a nice summer)

And then Reuters announced they were going to adopt the same standards for covering Trump that they use in places like Turkey and North Korea.

And then came on nearly the same day the ‘Bowling Green Massacre’ by KellyAnne Conway and the dual dementia twins of Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi claiming respectively that Putin was a bad man because he had invaded Korea and then Pelosi firmly showed her sad disgust, telling us all, so sorry, but there was just no way she could work with PRESIDENT BUSH.

On Fox, BOTH stories were covered. On CNN? MSNBC? ABC? NBC? CBS? I never saw a second of the latter story. Shown once? 10 seconds vs how many KellyAnne bites?

Of course there was no Bowling Green Massacre, what there was, was the arrest of two massacre wanna be perps who had ALREADY KILLED AMERICANS in Iraq and had snuck into the USA via our ‘secure vetting’.

Finally, yesterday, after the Meet The Press’s, Chuck Todd master tweet that the President of the USA was UN AMERICAN, and Trump, per usual, responded with a harder slam ..we had John McCain featured all day on CNN, and the lead story on the pages of all the news webs sites, of CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, and CBS, and MSNBC.

Not getting the same level of play? Rand Paul

I think Senator McCain’s perspective is colored by his disagreements with President Trump on foreign policy. If I were to look at foreign policy, I would say John McCain has been wrong on just about everything over the last four decades.

Which, of course, reminds us all of McCain’s fabulous judgment posing with the ‘moderate’ Free Syrian Army some of whom turned out to be ISIS, and Al Nusra, kidnappers and allies of same. His denial ~’we would never KNOWINGLY do that’.

Backup HERE,  HERE and HERE.

So why wasn’t this judgment fiasco played along with McCain’s statement about Trump’s nascent, seminal dictatorship behavior? Because every issue must be framed negatively, and pursued compulsively regardless of consequence.

To what end?

{SARC ON}

And by the way, if the press is a HOSTILE ENTITY to the president, what are they to his voters? How would they recommend those who put such a man in office be dealt with?

Venn diagram on that? But I don’t want to sound like Fareed Zakaria, or Don Lemon, or Brian Stelter or feel fear in my bed that a Chuck Todd might want to deal with me as unAmerican via some ‘proper’ means.

{SARC OFF}

The way the stories are chosen (the most important component), framed and then repeated ad nauseum in ‘panels’ characterize that every issue must be framed negatively, and pursued compulsively regardless of consequence.

Trump’s tweets REFOCUS the discussion.

Trump’s tweets REFOCUS the objective.

Trump’s tweets destroy the objective of FREEZING THE TARGET

Trump’s tweets push a negative so hard it becomes a positive

Trump’s tweets make the opposition feel vulnerable even though there is no bite (IT’S THE USA)

Trump’s tweets are a tactic that a LOT of people enjoy

Trump’s tweets force the press to live up to their own rules

Trump’s tweets exist outside the entire expert experience and book of how the press deals with the president

Trump’s tweets make the press feel as if he has some weird power, and they don;t understand how that works

DOES ANY OF THIS LIST SOUND FAMILIAR?

IT SHOULD