Whatchamacolumn: Trump creating needed jobs in national media
As a news reporter, Donald Trump would be warned and monitored, then fired; as a newspaper editorial writer, he simply would be terminated for cause. But as president of the United States, he is creating more jobs throughout the media world:
Fact-checkers.
Trump’s joint address to Congress on Tuesday has been dissected and analyzed by fact-checkers from the entire media alphabet: AP, PBS, NPR, CBS, CNN, ABC, BBS, NBC and MSNBC. You can find detailed fact-check reports in Time Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, Al Jazeera and Politico,
Fox News reported what the president said.
Investigations by others found Trump statements on a dozen major issues to be false (the majority), mostly false, half true or misleading. Here from PBS, for example, is a partial list of flawed Trump commentary topics: Social Security, government spending, immigration, the economy, inflation, tariffs, the price of eggs, foreign policy, Canada, the Paris Accord and political polling.
On the other side of truth, BBC credited Trump with accuracy on a topic that got him elected: border crossings.
Trump, wrote BBC, said that “illegal border crossings last month were by far the lowest ever recorded.” BBC reported that in February, the U.S. Border Patrol had 8,326 encounters with migrants at the southwest Mexican border, the “lowest level since monthly records began in 2000.” That, said BBC, compared to 140,641 encounters last February and reduced to 47,316 in December 2024.
And yet, Trump’s overblown claims of fentanyl and illegal immigrants flowing across the Canadian border have drawn our closest ally into an unnecessary and destructive trade war.
Americans are just beginning to ask themselves, and each other: Is Trump’s extreme disruption of federal government operations and merciless treatment of people tolerable and sustainable? How will the regrettable but limited loss of life in our withdrawal from Afghanistan compare to the potential Russian slaughter and takeover of Ukraine? Are we united in wanting to seize the Panama Canal and absorb Greenland and Canada?
Americans are just starting to ask if the Trump administration has any plans to address national issues of education, infrastructure, poverty, homelessness, housing costs, health care and more.
We all need to continue asking, continue watching and preparing to respond if progress continues toward a true constitutional crisis in which the legislative branch fails to lead and the executive branch ignores rulings by the judicial branch.
From the perspective of a common community media outlet – you know, the “enemy of the people” – I have to wonder how someone who couldn’t last one month in our newsroom can be the leader of the free world.
The United States of America, nearing its 250th year, has withstood monumental challenges, both internal and external. We can survive Donald Trump, Elon Musk and their minions, perhaps even becoming stronger in the process by recognizing the need to resist extremism from all political ideologies.
But only if we stay involved, talk to each other and, somehow, can collectively harness our “better angels.”
Jeb Bladine can be reached at jbladine@newsregister.com or 503-687-1223.
Comments
B
Apparently there are no longer any moderates on the NR
Bigfootlives
Jeb, correct me if I’m wrong. Is this the same media that lectured us about a tape of Russian prostitutes peeing on a hotel bed? That Putin hacked Hillary’s email server – the illegal one. That Putin helped Trump win in 2016. There are documents tying President Trump to Russian moguls; this one must be true; Adam Schiff has been saying he is going to release this information any day now for the last 8 years – under oath, by the way. Perjury is not a crime for democrats. Is this not the same media that lectured us for four years that Joe Biden (JB) was sharp as a tack? The young staffers in the white house could not keep up with him. That JB was a foreign policy wonk from way back, and the world had never been more stable. That the southern border was secure and there was absolutely no migrant problem whatsoever. That JB did not have any cognitive decline. That JB had a cold at THE debate. That JB was tired at THE debate. That they were SHOCKED that JB had any sort of cognitive decline, and this was totally out of the blue despite covering the man for 4 years.
My point is that NOBODY TRUSTS THE MEDIA. The public's trust in them is at an all-time low, and the TDS is off the charts. And there is this little thing with USAID. BBC was getting millions in subscriptions, Politico was getting millions in subscriptions, and the NY Times was getting millions in subscriptions. Reporters Without Borders, those fair-minded foreign journalists, were getting $268 million. Fact-check it all you want because the web of corruption is so deep they are also getting funding.
The media is dead. Look at the disgusting coverage of the speech on Tuesday. If that didn’t make you sick, I don’t know how you will save this once great newspaper. And I am sorry for saying that.
Moe
"As a news reporter, Donald Trump would be warned and monitored, then fired; as a newspaper editorial writer, he simply would be terminated for cause. But as president of the United States, he is creating more jobs throughout the media world: Fact-checkers."
Great with Sa morning coffee. A funny and entertaining circumlocution for "Trump is a liar. "Or perhaps, "Trump doesn't know the facts." Maybe, "Trump doesn't care about the facts."
I remember back in the 2016 campaign ... Candidate Trump referred to yesterday's big terror attack, I think in Sweden. The fact checkers went to work. No big terror attack in Sweden yesterday. But by the next day, there WAS a big terror attack in Sweden. So, Trump looked like a genius. And if not in Sweden, Germany or another country probably would have had something big along those lines. Same trick with Ted Cruze. Trump nicknamed Cruze "lyin' Ted." Well, besides being human, Ted IS a politician. He's going to lie or at least get something wrong. And he does have that kind of dishonest face. The fact checkers might agree with Ted on Tuesday, but by Tuesday night Ted is going to lie about something, or get his facts wrong, in a press conference, or campaign speech. So again, Trump looked like a genius, and Ted's face on TV became an icon of dishonesty, lyin' Ted.
Trump bragged about making one phone call with Putin to end the Ukraine war before 20 January. Well, not likely, and it didn't happen. But look what happened in the Oval Office last week, 28 February!
Sometimes so-called fact checkers are really putting out propaganda, often the inversion of reality. Who is their true employer? Are MSNBC & FOX not propaganda arms for the deep state? Just who WAS running the country during Biden-Harris?
Sometimes when Trump gets the facts wrong it may be from "advisors" feeding him deep state propaganda. And that's not so funny.
Jeb Bladine
Yes, Bigfootlives, we know that the American public’s trust in traditional media is at an all-time low, having dropped from about two-thirds in the 1970s to about one-third today. Much of that trend traces to the “enemy of the people” campaign waged by candidate/president Donald Trump, Fox News and others. The latest Gallup Polls shows 31% trusting media a great deal or fair amount; 33% not very much, 36% none at all.
Of course, Americans have lost trust in a lot of things.
Donald Trump’s most recent Gallup Poll approval rating is 45%, with 51% disapproving. That’s the lowest approval rate for a newly elected president since 1953, except for Trump’s first term in 2021.
Gallup Polls showed 81% approval of how Congress was handling its job in October 1984 – the latest number is 29%. Over the past 10 years, that approval rating for Congress has ranged from 9% to 31%.
Americans’ disapproval rate for the U.S. Supreme Court has grown steadily from 19% in 2000 to 51% today, after going even higher in 2021-24.
Polls and trends and political leanings and general distrust are all interesting discussions, but the current subject was about facts. If you believe the fact-checkers are lying or misleading or propagandizing, it would be more helpful to cite their specific transgressions on-topic than simply to demonize all media.
treefarmer
Jeb – much appreciate this article. No doubt what is happening to us now is directly related to the failure to recognize and accept facts. (And I acknowledge that it takes A LOT of effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.) I posted this on another thread but will copy it again here because it seems to contextualize the origins of comments you responded to:
I did a bit of research on Hal Turner (frequently cited to support opinions from one of our contributors) and found some facts about him that are rather illuminating. A former cocaine addict, Turner is also a convicted felon who spent 2 years in prison for threats against 3 Federal Judges. He is a holocaust denier, a fan of white supremacy, (specifically National Vanguard) he has called for assassinations of government officials, and seems to be well known for spreading hoaxes and conspiracy theories. I suppose we all have different criteria for sources we find trustworthy?
Not sure someone who relies on Hal Turner for “facts” can be reached. Scary times.
Moe
Leaked CIA Memo: How the Intel State Weaponized "Conspiracy Theories" to Silence the Truth
https://us14.campaign-archive.com/?e=6bca73318f&u=aaca0d56ddaf02ef4aa46f516&id=e420417163
As an illustration, admittedly a bit hyperbolic, if someone said "1 + 1 = 2," even that could be discredited by calling the messenger a "conspiracy theorist."
Related deliberate logical error:
"The memo specifically advised against engaging in open debate about the evidence, instructing media assets to instead focus on character attacks and ridicule. This technique ensured that the conversation never centered on the facts but instead on discrediting those who raised legitimate concerns."
mikes
Jeb. Thanks for your opinion. No one called you a liar for pointing out the truth. They just said no one trusts the media. Implying they don't trust you.
B. what is not moderate about Jeb talking about wanting to have a new paper employee who tells the truth?
Bigfoot: Also changing the subject, which an easy way to move the focus.
Moe: Very good at changing the subject. Have you read the CIA memo: CIA Doc 1025 960? It is available. Not about silencing the truth. It is about protecting the truth from conspiracy theories. Not to deflate the trust in posts on X, conspiracy theories is a very old term from the 1860s.
Moe
Above link referenced CIA Document 1035-960:
"The infamous CIA inter-office memorandum that addressed how to handle skepticism toward the Warren Commission is known as CIA Document 1035-960, which was declassified in 1976. This memo was issued in 1967 and provided guidance on how to discredit critics of the Warren Commission’s findings, particularly those questioning the official narrative surrounding President John F. Kennedy’s assassination."
Here is the link again:
https://us14.campaign-archive.com/?e=6bca73318f&u=aaca0d56ddaf02ef4aa46f516&id=e420417163
mikes
Moe. Using Campaign Archives. Interesting. You've read the CiA memo. Great. We see it differently. You say it is to discredit critics. I see it as trying to protect the truth of the Warren Commissions extensive investigation. The discrediting as you call it comes from presenting facts.
Moe
Truth does not need protection.
treefarmer
Truth ALWAYS needs protection- and vigilance too.
Moe
We know that 0 = 0.
That's a self-evident truth.
How about 1 = 0?
That's obviously false.
Now go out and build a machine for an ice cream factory. If you build it according to 1 = 0, it won't work. But it will work if your arithmetic says 0 = 0.
Does 0 = 0 have to be defended?
No.
But 1 = 0?
THAT would have to be defended.
It would not stand on its own.
If you came up with the hypothesis 1 = 0, that could be disproved by a mathematician. And physical evidence, such as ice cream machines that wouldn't work, would also disprove 1 = 0.
Ok, suppose a king said that 1 = 0.
I suppose you could say that 0 = 0 would have to be defended. Father to son, secret books, etc. So officially, 1 = 0. And you could lose your job, or your life, for saying "0 = 0." Cleaver fools might come up with a complicated theory to make ice cream machines that worked, and get around 1 = 0, maybe through philosophy, or a sleight of hand in calculations.
Moe
mikes
"Moe. Using Campaign Archives. Interesting. You've read the CiA memo. Great. We see it differently. You say it is to discredit critics. I see it as trying to protect the truth of the Warren Commissions extensive investigation. The discrediting as you call it comes from presenting facts."
No Mikes.
The point of the memo is to avoid arguing the facts. And instead discredit the messenger to discredit the theory. The memo is not a collection of facts that could be used to support the official JFK assassination story - it's how to avoid arguing the facts. The principle is, unfortunately, used over and over.
There are many conspiracies in history. The concept of a conspiracy, even involving a large number of people, is valid. Just think of the cover-up of the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, 8 June 1967, the same year as the subject CIA memo. (Today, per the memo, someone alleging such a coverup might be accused of antisemitism in an attempt to discredit the conspiracy theory.) The intention was obviously to sink the ship, with no survivors. The Israelis wanted to prevent the collection of intelligence on their military operations; had the ship gone down with no survivors, the incident could have been blamed on Egypt, possibly dragging the United States into the war, with a possible confrontation with the Soviet Union:
https://odysee.com/@AaronKasparov:2/ussliberty:7
Otis
The minders at Doge will not like this article. Only articles with flowery praise and groveling to the president will be published. All that choose to dissent with our leader must be deleted.
treefarmer
Deleted, attacked, fired, deported ~ the First Amendment is incompatible with autocracy, those freedoms are on thin ice.