As we've told you again and again, they aren't an impressive bunch. This is our upper-end press corps at work. Even as they savage Trump for ignoring scientific expertise, they themselves refuse to interview medical experts about his remarkably strange ideation and conduct. To appearances, other news orgs quickly fell into line.Īt that point, the attempt to discuss the president's psychiatric condition-an effort which was being made by an array of major psychiatrists-disappeared within the upper-end press.įrom that day to this, upper-end journalists and upper-end news orgs have refused to discuss Trump's persistent peculiar behavior in explicit medical terms. In January 2018, the New York Times published as editorial saying that the mainstream media simply shouldn't go there. By widespread corporate agreement, major news orgs have agreed that they mustn't discuss an obvious possibility-the possibility that President Trump is cognitively and/or psychiatrically impaired in a significant way. We've discussed this apparent situation many times in the past. To appearances, Wallace proceeded to muzzle herself! That said, it seems to us that her basic suggestion had been clear. Nor did Wallace ever push the discussion back in that direction. In what way is the media being muzzled? By whom is this muzzling being done? As the hour-long program proceeded, none of Wallace's reporters and friends ever spoke to these obvious questions. But what in the world did Wallace mean when she said the "the media" was being muzzled? And I worry that in ten, twenty years, they're going to say, "Why wasn't the media allowed to say what they saw? What everyone saw?" There's something clearly wrong with his ability to process what the country is going through.Coupled with her reference to cognitive testing, Wallace seemed to be floating an obvious suggestion about Trump's mental state. What did Wallace think she saw when Trump appeared in the Rose Garden? In her next sentence, she provided a hint. Journalists aren't being allowed to say, to report, what they see? Since Wallace is a ranking member of the upper-end media, her suggestion acquires added significance. She seemed to say that "the media" weren't being allowed to say what they saw-to say what they've been seeing-concerning the peculiar behavior of Donald J. And I worry that in ten, twenty years, they're going to say, "Why wasn't the media allowed to say what they saw? What everyone saw? We were only in the program's fourth minute, and Wallace had made a very strange statement. I mean, that was neither a presidential address worthy of the Rose Garden, nor an effective political message. If that was a campaign event, it was a crummy one. WALLACE (7/15/20): Can I stop you right there? Can I stop you right there? For our money, the highlighted statement was the day's most striking statement by far:
At this point-at 4:03 PM Eastern-she introduced a trio of guests.Īs usual, Wallace described these guests as "some of our favorite reporters and friends." But when she threw to Sam Stein, the first pundit she asked to speak, she quickly interrupted his reply.īelow, you see what Wallace said. She also cited Trump's recent statement about having "undergone cognitive testing."Īt some length, she quoted from Peter Baker's report in the New York Times-a report which stressed the rambling, incoherent nature of Trump's Rose Garden performance.
The background goes like this:Īs she started yesterday's program, Wallace cited Donald Trump's "bizarre and startling performance" in the Rose Garden the day before. The statement came from Nicolle Wallace, right at the start of yesterday's Deadline: White House program. Longs for uncensored discourse: For our money, within our experience, it was the day's most significant statement.
0 kommentar(er)
