| |
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 Things arguably got a little embarrassing for NBC moderator Chuck Todd during Sunday’s Meet the Press,
after Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton had to explain to him that the claims
of anonymous sources should be taken with a grain of salt. “Anonymous
sources said Steve Bannon drove from the White House to the Department
of Homeland Security to confront John Kelly, which we now know is not
the truth,” Cotton reminded Todd, “That’s not like the tone of a
conversation, that’s someone’s physical whereabouts.”
Cotton’s
schooling of Todd came as the NBC moderator pressed the Senator on when
the media could expect the Senate to call for a special prosecutor to
investigate Russian ties to the Trump administration. “What point is it
in the best interest of the country to sort of take it away from elected
partisans at this point,” Todd wanted to know.
According
to Cotton, Todd was putting the cart way before the horse. “There are
no allegations of any crime occurring,” he explained to Todd, “There's
not even indication that there's criminal investigations under way by
the FBI as opposed to counter intelligence investigations.” He also
tried to make it clear to Todd that as the FBI investigation progressed
it would be up to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to make the call for a
special prosecutor.
But
before Cotton could finish his thought, Todd interjected reminding the
Senator that he once called for a special prosecutor to look into the
IRS for politically motived actions against Tea Party organizations.
“That's something that can be decided down the road, but right now
there's no credible evidence of these contacts beyond anonymous sources
in the media,” Cotton clarified.
“And
I’ve got to tell you, anonymous sources can't always be trusted,”
Cotton quipped at the end of that thought. That didn’t sit well with
Told who defended the practice, noting, “Anonymous sources are how we
find out about a lot of scandal in this country.” It was then when
Cotton reminded Todd of the false accusations made about Bannon’s
interaction with Secretary Kelly. The earlier point Cotton described was
excellent, an observer could read into all sorts of body language and
misinterpret the tone and motivation in a conversation.
Todd
seemed befuddled as Cotton continued to caution about relying on such
sources, “You cannot credit stories that are based on anonymous sources.
You should look into them especially if you're in a position of
responsibility, but you can't simply credit them.” Todd seemed to give
up and moved on to talking about health care.
Todd’s
pushing for a special prosecutor to investigate Trump came off as
lusting for it to happen. Todd talked about it as though it was
something that was going to happen as a matter of fact. That’s a
narrative that the liberal media has been pushing for a while now. They
even overlooked CNN’s own reporting that when the FBI brief the White
House on the investigation they said the media’s reports were
overstating the facts. That’s an important fact Cotton had to remind
Todd of.
Transcript below:
NBC
Meet the Press
February 26, 2017
10:37:51 AM Eastern
…
TOM
COTTON: So Chuck, let's take the CNN article on face value. I'm not
going to confirm or deny obviously anything in these stories because
these leaks of classified information could do real harm to our national
security, but let's take it at face value. So it says the FBI went to
President Trump and Reince Priebus and said that reports of contacts
between Trump associates last year and Russian intelligence officials
were grossly overstated. Isn't it reasonable for the chief of staff to
then say to the FBI director “Well, are you going to say anything to
correct the record on this since everyone is running around Washington
making these allegations?” I think that's a perfectly reasonable
response. Now the FBI and other intelligence agencies have reasons that
they don't go out and call balls and strikes on news stories because we
don't want to let our adversaries know what we do know and what we don't
know, or how we know it. But again, if you take everything in that
story at face value I don’t think there’s that much alarming in it
...
10:40:39 AM Eastern
CHUCK
TODD: And finally, I want to ask you about the Darrell Issa being open
to a special prosecutor. What point is it in the best interest of the
country to sort of take it away from elected partisans at this point?
Whether it's a commission-- I know a select commission, outside
commission or a special prosecutor. Where are you in that?
 COTTON:
Well, I think that's way, way getting ahead of ourselves here, Chuck.
There are no allegations of any crime occurring. There's not even
indication that there's criminal investigations under way by the FBI as
opposed to counter intelligence investigations, which the FBI conducts
all the time as our main counter-intelligence bureau. If we get down
that road that's a decision that Attorney General Sessions can make at
the time. But I think that’s—
TODD:
Senators can call for it on their own. I mean, you called during your
campaign against Mike prior. You called for a special prosecutor for the
IRS. When does-- How does this Russia allegation, when does that rise
to that level in your mind?
COTTON:
Well, I think that's far down the road from what our inquiry might
reveal in the Intelligence Committee or what the FBI’s inquiries might
reveal. That's something that can be decided down the road, but right
now there's no credible evidence of these contacts beyond anonymous
sources in the media. And I’ve got to tell you, anonymous sources can't
always be trusted.
TODD: Anonymous sources are how we find out about a lot of scandal in this country.
COTTON:
Anonymous sources said Steve Bannon drove from the White House to the
Department of Homeland Security to confront John Kelly, which we now
know is not the truth. That’s not like the tone of a conversation,
that’s someone’s physical whereabouts.
TODD: I – I – I
COTTON:
You cannot credit stories that are based on anonymous sources. You
should look into them especially if you're in a position of
responsibility, but you can't simply credit them.
TODD: Let me talk to you about healthcare.
|
|
By Scott Whitlock
The
perpetually outraged Brian Stelter is outraged yet again. After Donald
Trump lambasted CNN and the “fake news media” at the Conservative
Political Action Conference (CPAC), Friday, Stelter
fumed, “The demagoguery continues. This was all about us versus them. I
think we heard it in almost every sentence. Us versus them.”
The
CNN journalist complained, “He tried to divide the real media from the
fake news media, suggesting CNN is fake news and unspecified others are
real news.” In the speech, Trump promised to “do something” about fake
news. Stelter saw this as a threat, wondering, “A lot of journalists got a chill up their spine hearing that sentence. Is that just normal bluster from the President?”
Stelter speculated:
Is
that just normal bluster from the President? It could be just normal
bluster. He's just complaining. But to say 'we're going to do something
about it,' it's curious. Because so far all he's really done is
complained about the coverage. He hasn't taken actions against news
organizations. So, that sentence stood out to me from this speech.
Stelter
also laughably insisted, “But let's just, for the record, let’s make
clear: He said that journalists make up stories and make up sources.
There's no evidence of that.”
Really? Like when the New York Times used a fake Michael Flynn Twitter account in a recent story and then the journalist involved repeated it on CBS This Morning? For more on fake news, go here.
A partial transcript is below:
 At this Hour With Kate Bolduan 2/24/17 11:13
KATE
BOLDUAN: And speaking of the media, Brian Stelter, to you, he railed on
the media. He doubled down on that the media is the enemy of the people
line. And yet this also comes at a time when we look at the latest
Quinnipiac University poll which came out yesterday, more people trust
the media than trust Donald Trump. Now, obviously there is a big break
along party lines here. But what do you make of him doing that? It seems
to certainly work well for him, at least with his base.
BRIAN
STELTER: The demagoguery continues. This was all about us versus them. I
think we heard it in almost every sentence. Us versus them. And that's
true with the media. He tried to divide the real media from the fake
news media, suggesting CNN is fake news and unspecified others are real
news. So, what he's trying to do even there is divide, create a division
between the sources he like and the sources he doesn’t like. But let's
just, for the record, let’s make clear: He said that journalists make up
stories and make up sources. There's no evidence of that. When we have
anonymous sources, our bosses know who they are and there's very careful
research and vetting that goes on. Journalists do not make up stories
and sources. Once in a while, there are bad apples in a news
organization, I can count them on one hand of the cases we know about
and when that happens there are penalties. But journalists don't make up
sources. One more point about polls, he said journalists make up
polls.
That
is completely untrue. People work really hard using scientific methods
to conduct these polls. And finally, one sentence I think we're going to
need to probe in more detail, he said the media doesn't represent the
people. It never will represent the people, and we're going to do
something about it. A lot of journalists got a chill up their spine
hearing that sentence. Is that just normal bluster from the President?
It could be just normal bluster. He's just complaining. But to say we're
going to do something about it. It's curious, because so far all he's
really done is complained about the coverage. He hasn't taken actions
against news organizations. So, that sentence stood out to me from this
speech.
|
|
By Clay Waters
Sunday’s New York Times
featured the latest installment in easily-freaked media reporter Jim
Rutenberg’s crusade against President Trump: “Trump’s Undermining
Reporters May Haunt Republicans.” The online headline foreshadowed
Rutenberg’s unlikely attempt to enlist Republicans in defense of the
press and against Trump: “Will the Real Democracy Lovers Please Stand
Up?” while the text box delivered an empty threat: “This strategy could
push Republicans into a corner later.”
Rutenberg
made no acknowledgement of the increasingly unconcealed anti-Trump
partisanship displayed by the media, including his own newspaper.
Rutenberg’s own infamous front-page column from August 2016 argued that
the rules of journalistic objectivity didn’t apply in the case of
fighting then-candidate Trump.
During
another week of presidential declarations that some journalists were
“enemies of the people;” of new steps to restrict White House press
access by way of a naughty-and-nice list, and of reported moves to force
national intelligence agencies to toe the administration line, a
now-familiar pattern set in.
Journalists,
their subscriptions and ratings spiking, howled about another move to
undercut the role the free press plays in a democracy (which “Dies in
Darkness” as the new Washington Post slogan has it). The administration
doubled down on its antipress aggression, this time declaring it was
“going to get worse every day” for these “globalist” and “corporatist”
journalists (and other such gobbledygook from the former Goldman Sachs
executive Stephen K. Bannon).
And
all the while, so many of the most important and credible leaders in
the president’s own party more or less kept their traps shut or looked
the other way.
If
there were ever a moment for government leaders who believe that true
information unearthed by independent news sources is vital to our nation
to stand up and say so, this would be it.
President
Trump’s argument that the national press corps is illegitimate and
dishonest has emerged as one of the most consistent themes of his
presidency, alongside -- and seemingly as important to him -- his calls
for a major tax code overhaul, an end to Obamacare, a border wall and
“extreme vetting.”
Those
other parts of his agenda appeal to large groups of Republicans on
Capitol Hill, including the leaders of the House and the Senate. So you
could see the appeal of staying out of the way to let Mr. Trump do his
thing against the press -- no great favorite on The Hill anyway-- as
their other big policy dishes marinate and cook.
But
they might be wise to rethink that strategy. The journalism that Mr.
Trump and his aides seek to delegitimize today could be the legitimate
research and bipartisan data points they try to use to make policy
arguments with Mr. Trump tomorrow.
Not
likely. Rutenberg tried to enlist Republicans to go after Trump and
defend the press, which has always been just so fair to the GOP in the
past.
Asked on Thursday
about Mr. Trump’s first declaration that the press was “the enemy,”
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said, “I don’t
view you guys as the enemy.” It warms the heart.
He
went on to say: “I expect adversarial questions. And you rarely
disappoint me. And I think it’s part of what make America function.”
It
was a start, I guess. But it fell short of the full-throated “knock it
off” to Mr. Trump that these times demand, at least when it comes to
calling true journalism false or calling journalists dishonest enemies.
The office of Representative Paul D. Ryan, the House speaker, declined to engage with me on Saturday
when I asked for a comment on whether Mr. Ryan was comfortable with
what I called Mr. Trump’s attempt to delegitimize the fourth estate. His
office said it disputed the premise of the question.
Rutenberg then undercut his own argument a bit by admitting that tough anti-Trump journalism was still being done.
And
every week I wonder about it myself -- how serious are all the threats
and bluster against the news media by Mr. Trump and Mr. Bannon, given
that news organizations continue to break big stories about the
administration with help from leaks that have not abated despite the
presidential pounding?
None of it stopped The Washington Post from reporting on Friday
that presidential aides, after failing to convince the F.B.I. to
publicly dispute reports by The New York Times and CNN about contact
between Trump campaign aides and Russian intelligence, went on to
successfully pressure other intelligence officials and key congressmen
to do the same. It didn’t keep The Associated Press and The Wall Street
Journal from reporting on a Department of Homeland Security assessment
disputing the basis for the administration’s attempt to block travel to
the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
Falsely conflating pleasing reporters with defending democracy, Rutenberg turned to a grand old man of journalism:
On Saturday,
I turned to a sage of the Washington press corps, Bob Schieffer of CBS,
whose time in Washington dates to the Nixon administration, to see how
seriously he took the recent threats against the press. It was his 80th
birthday.
“We
need to be taking this very seriously -- any time you undermine the
press, I think that’s very dangerous for democracy,” Mr. Schieffer said.
“Do we want a situation where the only source of information is the
government? I mean, really? Somehow I don’t think that’s what the
founders intended.”
Rutenberg even considered boycotting Trump’s next round of media criticism in the name of solidarity.
There
should be, however, legitimate questions about whether that reporting
should include blanket coverage of the next speech Mr. Trump gives in
which he calls honest journalists dishonest or “the opposition.” Those
kinds of polemical statements are no longer “news” (defined as “new”)
but rather part of a repetitive, antipress, negative branding campaign.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 Things got painfully real for the liberal media during CNN’s New Day Sunday
after Nick Adams, Founder of the Foundation for Liberty and American
Greatness, called out the White House Correspondent’s Dinner for being “ a Democratic Party worship center.” “ But, I think that there's no reason for the President to go on this particular occasion,” Adams explained, after being asked if Trump should attend the lavish liberal event, “ I know that it's a long-standing tradition, but in recent years it’s become a blight on the republic.”
“You
know, I think the oligarchic spectacle of the fourth-estate, dressing
up in a white tie to celebrate themselves accompanied by various
celebrities--” he continued before being rudely cut off by flabbergasted New Day Sunday co-host Christi Paul. “You mean it’s inappropriate? You think it's inappropriate? I don't understand why you call it a blight,” she said.
He
then scorned the event as “a Democratic Party worshiping center” and
recalled how the event’s lampooning was harsher on Republicans. “I
mean, when we have a look at what has happened in recent years,
Republican presidents are mocked in a brutal way, while Democratic
presidents are soothed and patted like family pets,” a point
which was proven when Paul previously hyped and cut to a clip of former
President Barack Obama mocking Trump at the dinner.
Paul was still shocked as she interrupted Adams again and tried to find something to come back with. “But
Nick—I mean—we’ve – we’ve had all the other – I mean -- both President
Bush’s have been up there. Clinton has been up there. We—it’s kind of an
equal opportunity roasting to some degree. Is it not,” she finally managed to ask. He responded by reminding the viewers that according to Gallup that “trust in the media is at an all-time low…”
The
CNN co-host was so befuddled that when she spouted off about Trump’s
negative approval ratings (as compared to the media’s) she kept
referring to him as “Obama.” “There may be a low trust in the
media there's also a low trust with President Obama as well, and a 38
percent favorability rate for President Obama.”
She
then tried to stick Adams with a clip of White House Chief Strategist
Steven Bannon commenting at CPAC about the media not wanting to give up
control of the country. Adams shot her down with help from a Media
Research Center study:
Well,
Christi look, I think it's very clear that President Trump has an
agenda that many journalists in this country don't like. It's no secret,
that journalists are far more liberal than the rest of the United
States. And I don't think it would surprise anybody to know that the
Media Research Center discovered that if only journalists could vote, we
would only get Democratic presidents. So I think that there's a gulf
between journalists and Middle America.
The
MRC’s study noted that “Between 1964 and 1992, Republicans won the
White House five times compared with three Democratic victories. But if
only journalists’ ballots were counted, the Democrats would have won
every single election.”
“I don't know you can – you can generalize all journalists as – as being liberal,” Paul declared before handing the attack over to Amanda Terkel, a senior political reporter from the radically liberal Huffington Post. “I
mean, the agenda of the media that Trump doesn't like is presenting the
facts, whether or not they make Donald Trump look very good,” Terkel claimed.
As
much as CNN wanted to whine about Trump not attending the dinner,
Adams’ quip that the event is a gathering of an elite “oligarchy” is a
criticism that can be found on the left as well. In May of last year,
the very liberal Bob Garfield tore into CNN’s Brian Stelter and declared
the event “ethically questionable,” because “[e]verybody's too cozy and
it's hard for the press to fulfill its watchdog function if you're
palling around with people who you can't even ask a journalistic
question of.”
Transcript below:
CNN
New Day Sunday
February 26, 2017
7:34:48 PM Eastern
CHRISTI
PAUL: So Nick, here’s the thing, he would have been standing at the
podium himself, President Trump. He would have had the attention of
everybody. Why do you think he chose not to go?
NICK
ADAMS: Well Christi, it's President Trump's party and he can cancel if
he wants to. I think there’s an argument to be made that it's a good
opportunity for a president to present himself in a light-hearted
self-deprecating way that might endear him to people that don’t
necessarily like or align with his mission or objectives. But, I
think that there's no reason for the President to go on this particular
occasion. I know that it's a long-standing tradition, but in recent
years it’s become a blight on the republic. You know, I think the
oligarchic spectacle of the fourth-estate, dressing up in a white tie to
celebrate themselves accompanied by various celebrities—
 PAUL: You mean it’s inappropriate? You think it's inappropriate? I don't understand why you call it a blight.
ADAMS: Well
Christi, I think it has been a Democratic Party worship center. I mean,
when we have a look at what has happened in recent years, Republican
presidents are mocked in a brutal way, while Democratic presidents are
soothed and patted like family pets.—
PAUL: But
Nick—I mean—we’ve – we’ve had all the other – I mean -- both President
Bush’s have been up there. Clinton has been up there. We—it’s kind of an
equal opportunity roasting to some degree. Is it not?
ADAMS: Well, I think it's not. I
think that it's very clear that Democratic presidents get a much
easier, much smoother run, Christi, than Republican presidents. And – I -- you know, I don't think that there's any reason for the President to go. I
think he’s made a good decision, and I think that the recent Gallup
information that came out that trust in the media is at an all-time low,
only 30 percent Independents trust the media, only 40 percent of
Republicans trust the media. There's a real problem here and I think that President Trump is listening to it.--
PAUL: Well
it doesn’t speak well for anybody, because yes, there may be a low
trust in the media there's also a low trust with President Obama [Trump]
as well, and a 38 percent favorability rate for President Obama
[Trump]. Let’s listen too something Steve Bannon said at CPAC earlier
this week about this.
…
PAUL: Nick, what did he mean by that?
ADAMS: Well,
Christi look, I think it's very clear that President Trump has an
agenda that many journalists in this country don't like. It's no secret
that journalists are far more liberal than the rest of the United
States, and I don't think it would surprise anybody to know that the
Media Research Center discovered that if only journalists could vote, we
would only get Democratic presidents. So I think that there's a gulf
between journalists and Middle America. And—
PAUL: I don't know you can – you can generalize all journalists as – as being liberal. Amanda, did you want to take that one?
AMANDA TERKEL: I
mean, the agenda of the media that Trump doesn't like is presenting the
facts, whether or not they make Donald Trump look very good. I
mean yes, trust in the media is low as it is with Donald Trump. But
then you have the President out there saying that the media is the enemy
of the American people. You have declaring things to be fake news if he
doesn't like them, going after them for using anonymous sources even
though Donald Trump himself for many years loved talking to the media
off the record and would actually make up fake names and talk to the
media when he was being himself but would pretend to be somebody else.
And you have Donald Trump deciding that the media is a good scapegoat
and going after them whether it's fair or not.
BRIAN
STELTER: Yeah, the President needs an opponent, and right now the
opponent is the media, because the media is actually pretty strong.
People are tuning in and watching and reading in record numbers right
now because they want to know if what the President is saying is true or
not. So, you know, I understand why he is skipping the dinner after
both Bush’s and Reagan and all those Republican presidents in the past
did show up. I understand why he wants to be anti-establishment and
break with tradition, because he wants to break with lots of traditions.
But this event was about celebrating – and it is and will be about
celebrating journalism, and actually celebrating the institution of the
president. It's bigger than anyone man and it's a missed opportunity, I
think, for the president this year.
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
During a report for Friday’s NBC Today,
rural Wisconsin Trump supporters repeatedly frustrated attempts by
political analyst Nicolle Wallace to get them to criticize President
Trump. The flummoxed journalist noted: “On this farm, the President gets plenty of pasture, even for the controversial travel ban.”
Of
Trump’s executive order on immigration, dairy farmer Brian Laplant
argued: “Maybe he didn't handle it the right way. But is there ever
going to be a right way to handle that? If it keeps us safe, maybe
that's what we gotta do.” Wallace worried: “Do you think that's in line with our values as a country?” Laplant replied: “There's a small group of radicals that make everyone look bad. There's no good way of handling this.”
Wallace
took a similar approach weeks earlier, when she scolded a Pennsylvania
Trump voter for supporting the policy: “You don't think that's
un-American?”
Turning to Laplant’s daughter, Wallace confessed: “I
think a lot of people in the media, like me, that got this wrong, got
it wrong because we thought that women would be offended by some of the
things he said. Did any of the things he – ” Holly Laplant cut her off: “No, no. He's just a guy.
I don't know how well you guys know Wisconsinites, but we're pretty
brash people. You know, we drink beer, like the cold. I mean, we are
just who we are. He – to me – he fits really well with us.”
Wallace
managed to find another farmer who was concerned “that this week's
sweeping changes to immigration policy could hurt business.” She
explained: “John Pagel also supports Donald Trump, but says his dairy
can't survive without Hispanic immigrants....many of his employees are
scared that they'll be deported...” However, she added that “he still
supports the President.”
Back on the Laplant farm, Wallace pressed 22-year-old Holly: “What about the tweeting? Do you like that he tweets or do you think he gets himself in trouble?” Laplant was unfazed:
It's
just his way. I don't know. He doesn't have to change who he was from
previous just because he is now the president. Should he try to do
things a little differently? Yes. But he doesn't have to completely
change who he is. I mean, that kind of defeats the purpose of us voting
for him in the first place.
Her
father followed: “He's ruffling a lot of feathers, which is kind of
what we were looking for. I don't know, people just need to give him a
chance. We did that with Obama, we gave Obama him a chance. So now let's
give this guy a chance.”
After the taped segment, Wallace tried to offer hope to Trump’s opponents: “I guess the heartening piece for his critics is that nothing is lost on him. None of his missteps are lost on these voters.”
Here is a full transcript of the February 24 report:
8:33 AM ET
MATT
LAUER: Let's continue now with our ongoing series, In Trump They Trust.
Nicolle Wallace has been hitting the road, visiting people who helped
elect President Trump. Nicolle, good morning again, good to see you.
NICOLLE WALLACE: Good morning you guys, you can't get rid of me today.
LAUER: Happy to have you.
WALLACE:
So President Trump was the first Republican to win Wisconsin since
Ronald Reagan by appealing to life-long Democrats and while Hillary
Clinton never visited that state that was supposed to be part of her
so-called “blue wall.” We went back to the Badger State to find out how
some of them are feeling about their vote now.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: In Trump They Trust; Supporters Speak Out One Month Into Presidency]
It's
milking and feeding time at the Laplant family farm in Sturgeon Bay.
And if you want to hear what they think about Donald Trump, be ready to
help with the chores first.
HOLLY LAPLANT: They'll come to you. They know what time it is.
WALLACE: So why doesn't he ever say anything bad about Putin?
BRIAN
LAPLANT: Maybe we need them in the long run to fight radical Islam.
Better to have a few allies in that department than being all alone.
We’ve done this alone for how long?
 WALLACE: On this farm, the President gets plenty of pasture, even for the controversial travel ban.
LAPLANT:
Maybe he didn't handle it the right way. But is there ever going to be a
right way to handle that? If it keeps us safe, maybe that's what we
gotta do.
WALLACE: Do you think that's in line with our values as a country?
LAPLANT: There's a small group of radicals that make everyone look bad. There's no good way of handling this.
WALLACE:
But these aren't the opinions of a staunch Republican. Brian Laplant
was a Democrat his entire life. Did you vote for Obama?
LAPLANT: Do I have to admit that?
WALLACE [LAUGHING]: I think you just did.
LAPLANT:
I did. I did. I voted for him two times. I was – I thought – well, I
was a Democrat. Well, now really I don't know what I really am.
WALLACE: He's still a farmer. Up every morning at 4 a.m. to milk his herd of 85 cows, a job that doesn't end until the sun goes down.
LAPLANT: You can't just quit this.
WALLACE: But Brian says leaving the Democratic Party was an easy choice.
LAPLANT:
Well, we always thought the Democrat was for the working people. I
don't think that's the case anymore, they forgot about us.
WALLACE: Hillary Clinton didn't even come here this year.
LAPLANT:
Thinking it was a lock. The center of the country is where we work with
our hands, we actually got our president this time around.
HOLLY LAPLANT: I mean, being a woman and supporting Trump, people are like, “Oh, my gosh, how can you? That’s terrible.”
WALLACE: Brian’s 22-year-old daughter Holly also helped break the Democrats hold on this family.
[TO
HOLLY LAPLANT] I think a lot of people in the media, like me, that got
this wrong, got it wrong because we thought that women would be offended
by some of the things he said. Did any of the things he –
LAPLANT:
No, no. He's just a guy. I don't know how well you guys know
Wisconsinites, but we're pretty brash people. You know, we drink beer,
like the cold. I mean, we are just who we are. He – to me – he fits
really well with us.
BRIAN LAPLANT: He's a business man. And the country should be ran like a business and it hasn't been for a long time.
WALLACE:
But some of Wisconsin's larger dairies worry that this week's sweeping
changes to immigration policy could hurt business. John Pagel also
supports Donald Trump, but says his dairy can't survive without Hispanic
immigrants.
JOHN
PAGEL: When everybody else is off for Christmas, somebody is still here
working. The cows need to be milked everyday at the same time. They're
filling the void of the jobs that a lot of other people don't want to do
anyway. They love their work, they love to work. They make a good
living and they send money back home for their families that need it.
It's a big deal.
WALLACE: Pagel says many of his employees are scared that they'll be deported, but he still supports the President.
PAGEL: Let's fix the system so that they can fill the jobs that we need.
WALLACE:
Back at the Laplant’s farm, Holly just finished two years of school and
is hoping that one day she'll take over the farm from her dad.
HOLLY LAPLANT: I'm a farm girl, I don't want to move away.
WALLACE: She's also firm in her support for President Trump.
[TO LAPLANT] What about the tweeting? Do you like that he tweets or do you think he gets himself in trouble?
LAPLANT:
It's just his way. I don't know. He doesn't have to change who he was
from previous just because he is now the president. Should he try to do
things a little differently? Yes. But he doesn't have to completely
change who he is. I mean, that kind of defeats the purpose of us voting
for him in the first place.
BRIAN
LAPLANT: He's ruffling a lot of feathers, which is kind of what we were
looking for. I don't know, people just need to give him a chance. We
did that with Obama, we gave Obama him a chance. So now let's give this
guy a chance.
WALLACE: What advice do you have for him?
LAPLANT: Think he’ll call me?
WALLACE: He might, you never know.
[LAUGHTER]
LAPLANT:
Actually, that would be the greatest thing that could ever happen to
agriculture, if we could get him on a small dairy. Have him come out,
walk around with his boots on, like you.
WALLACE:
Exit polls show that 63% of Wisconsin voters had a negative opinion of
Donald Trump on Election Day, but 21% of those who viewed him
unfavorably voted for him anyway.
LAUER:
That's fascinating. Were those people hoping that Trump would come
through for them or were they voting against Hillary Clinton?
WALLACE:
Those people felt like someone was speaking to them for the first time.
The thing that he said that just struck me, like struck a nerve for me,
was when he said that people that work with their hands had been
ignored for so long and he came out and was finally talking to them.
CARSON
DALY: And it was the perception that it was Democrats that were, you
know, hold them down on jobs and now they had that switch and they feel
like Mr. Trump was the answer.
WALLACE:
Yeah, and I guess the heartening piece for his critics is that nothing
is lost on him. None of his missteps are lost on these voters.
LAUER: Nicolle, fascinating stuff. Thank you very much.
DALY: Thanks, Nicolle.
|
|
By Jorge Bonilla
Further
ramping up his open opposition to President Trump's immigration law
enforcement policies, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos has let loose with an
outrageous tirade that could best be described as equal
parts nationalistic identity politics, racially-driven demagoguery, and
yet another instance of the irresponsible conflation of legal and
illegal immigration.
Here's
how the Univision/Fusion anchor kicked off his participation in the
2017 edition of the network's annual entertainment awards show, Premios Lo Nuestro ("Our Awards"):
JORGE
RAMOS, SENIOR NEWS ANCHOR, UNIVISION: I am an immigrant, just like many
of you. I am a proud Latino immigrant here in the United States. My
name is Jorge Ramos, and I work at Univision and at the Fusion network.
And you know exactly what is going on here in the United States. There
are many people who do not want us to be here, and who want to create a
wall in order to separate us. But you know what? This is also our country. Let me repeat this: OUR country, not theirs. It is our country. And we are not going to leave.
We are nearly 60 million Latinos in the United States. And thanks to
US, the United States eats, grows and, as we've seen today, sings and
dances. So when they attack us, we already know what we are
going to do. We are not going to sit down. We will not shut up. And we
will not leave. That is what we are going to do.
Premios Lo Nuestro is usually just a nice bit of entertainment for fans of the many different genres of Latin music...not unlike the Billboards or the CMAs.
However, as we saw during last year's pre-election RiseUp concert and
GOTV rally, Univision is increasingly mixing politics and entertainment -
and that's how we end up with Ramos as a presenter at a music awards
show.
Ramos'
speech is amazingly strident, with an "us against them" tone that one
would not expect from someone who incessantly promotes diversity from
the other side of his mouth. When Ramos told the audience that "there are many who do not want us to be here", he erases any distinction between legal and illegal immigration,
and irresponsibly casts immigration as an exclusively Latino issue.
This is not the first time Ramos has drawn on both deceptive and
discredited rhetorical devices such as these.
 What is astounding,
though, is Ramos' ferociously nationalistic rhetoric. On this score,
Ramos would have been in the clear had he stopped at "this is also our
country". Such a statement hints at inclusion, patriotism, and a
pro-forma desire to assimilate and function as an integral part of the
nation as a whole. However, Ramos crossed a bright line when he decreed
the United States to be "OUR country, not theirs". One does not expect
to hear such nationalistic rhetoric from a hardened critic of Donald
Trump and Steve Bannon, and yet this isn't the first time that a
Univision anchor lets loose with a nationalist rant. Who can forget
Ramos' co-anchor María Elena Salinas' remarks, when she went nuclear
after Ramos' 2015 Iowa press conference incident?
Jorge
wanted a piece of Trump ever since that first speech where he announced
his candidacy and said that Mexico sends criminals, drug traffickers
and rapists over the border. In reality, most of us that work in
Spanish-language media have wanted a piece of him (Trump), have wanted
to question him and challenge him and show him that his statements are
baseless. Moreover, that his words are the equivalent of a declaration of war against an important sector of American society. As
in any war, an aggression against one of our own brings pride and
nationalism to the surface. Insult Hispanic immigrants, with or without
papers, and you insult all of us Hispanics. They are not alone.
Univision would
like English-language audiences to think that Ramos didn't actually say
what he said. The network deceptively softened the most incendiary
portion of Ramos' "bold statement" when it translated it for consumption
by English-speaking audiences. "OUR country, not theirs" magically
became "OUR country, not just theirs". Univision also disappeared that part of his statement from a related meme.
Finally,
Ramos' statement begs the question: Who is this "our" that he speaks
of? Is it U.S. Latinos regardless of birthplace? Legal immigrants?
Illegal immigrants? Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform? Is
it the multiracial and multicultural "rising American mainstream"? That
much isn't clear. What IS clear is that "Our", within the context of
Ramos' statement, suggests a separate nationality to which U.S.
Hispanics owe some sort of allegiance. Ramos, of all people, should know
better than to approach the lines of racial and cultural supremacism -
even if it is in furtherance of an amnesty cause that is near and dear
to him.
He STILL doesn't represent me.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment