Yes, Virginia, Journalism is Actually Dead.

In This Column, We Mourn the Death of Journalism...and Find Out Why the New York Times David Brooks is a Boob

I fully understand that among those reading this missive, there will be both good friends and strangers who cannot for the life of them understand why I would support Donald Trump for President.  They see him as a racist, a xenophobe, a demagogue, a fascist, misogynist and  a bigot. 

However, I’ve seen little evidence to support that position.  What I have seen, and what I have written about before, is how I have seen some of the worst, most inappropriate, unprofessional and manipulative journalism written about Trump that I have ever seen in my lifetime, much of it from so-called “established professionals” and even those who have purported to be conservatives, from whom I expect a much higher standard.

Yes, yes, like many of those reading, I have read that Trump hates Muslims.  I have read that Trump has lied. That Trump said Mexicans are rapists and he talked about Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle.  If any of that were true, it would reflect terribly on Trump.  Except, none of those things actually happened.  

What Trump did do is note that the Mexican government is allowing people to cross their border from all over the world, with little oversight.  They cross into the United States in the hundreds of thousands each year.  This accounts, for instance, into 38% of all homicides in the United States, annually, according to the Census Bureau.

Trump talked about Fox reporter Kelly as “…having blood coming out of her eyes, out of her wherever…”, but this is common figure of speech, not a reference to any particular bodily function.  These slights, along with many others, exist only in the imaginations of pundits trying deliberately to stir the flames.  None moreso than David Brooks of the New York Times. 

In his recent Op-ed, “No Trump, Not Ever.”, Brooks slimes through what can be best considered an unprofessional rant of namecalling without substance regarding Trump.  Now, nothing wrong with a little namecalling, for instance, David Brooks is boob.  That said, one should be able to back it up with some type of core causation as to why one would reach such conclusions.  Here, Brooks fails miserably.

Brooks in his New York Times piece, calls Trump unprepared, with no advisors or policies.  David Brooks is not stupid man, which I would not believe.  He knows full well that Trump is regularly advised by the likes of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, Billionaire CEO Carl Icahn and veteran campaigner Corey Lewandowski.  He must also know that Trump has policy positions laid out carefully on his website regarding health care, immigration, taxation, trade and a range of other subjects.  Trump has an entire book of these out since last fall.  No, Brooks knows these things, or he’s frankly not qualified to report for the Times.  What Brooks is, is a liar.

In the entire article, Brooks brings to the table only two points even approaching debatable saliency.  Firstly, he references a Politico article making the claim that Trump made over 60 untrue statements in just a few speeches.  The issue with that, is that many of the “untrue statements” so “fact-checked” aren’t really untrue at all, but are merely the writers disagreeing with Trump.  Trump did say “In trade, we lose to everybody”.  Sure, there are a few countries with whom we still have a trade surplus, but, the statement was understood to be hyperbolic as the United States does suffer an overall trade deficit of over $500 billion dollars, so the statement is actually true.

Another example from the Politico hit piece is that “untruth” that Trump is self-funding his campaign.  You see, Trump has merely “lent” his campaign $18 million dollars, or 93% of all campaign funds, rather than given it to himself.  This means, horrors! He can give it back to himself later, but this clearly makes him a liar, at least in Politico’s World.  So much for their integrity as a news source.

Secondly, Brooks points out that Trump is doomed to lose the general election, because he currently has a disapproval rate of 60% among the American people.  What he fails to mention is that Hillary Clinton has a disapproval of 53%.  That, and there’s eight months between now and voting day, which is known in political world as much water to cross.  Since Brooks’ last prediction was that Trump could never become the nominee, there becomes much room for doubt.

The remainder of the article just gets silly, claiming that the Bible itself foretells the coming of Trump and that we must be forewarned against his demagoguery and fascism, whatever that means.  He then wraps up by pointing out that the Founders of the United States would be appalled at the coming of Trump as a viable candidate for the Office of President.  In fact, according to David Brooks, Trump may represent a threat to American Democracy itself.  If only the voters weren’t so damn foolish, right?

What else would you expect from a self-described “conservative” who thinks that John McCain and Lindsay Graham are the standard bearers of the GOP and that Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater are outdated as conservatives.  David Brooks, the boob, has actually argued this.