As discussed on Wednesday’s Devolution program.
By Kyle Pope, CJR
JANUARY 30, 2023
Seven and a half years ago, journalism began a tortured dance with Donald Trump, the man who would be the country’s forty-fifth president—first dismissing him, then embracing him as a source of ratings and clicks, then going all in on efforts to catalogue Trump as a threat to the country (also a great source of ratings and clicks).
No narrative did more to shape Trump’s relations with the press than Russiagate. The story, which included the Steele dossier and the Mueller report among other totemic moments, resulted in Pulitzer Prizes as well as embarrassing retractions and damaged careers. For Trump, the press’s pursuit of the Russia story convinced him that any sort of normal relationship with the press was impossible.
For the past year and a half, CJR has been examining the American media’s coverage of Trump and Russia in granular detail, and what it means as the country enters a new political cycle. Investigative reporter Jeff Gerth interviewed dozens of people at the center of the story—editors and reporters, Trump himself, and others in his orbit.
The result is an encyclopedic look at one of the most consequential moments in American media history. Gerth’s findings aren’t always flattering, either for the press or for Trump and his team. Doubtless they’ll be debated and maybe even used as ammunition in the ongoing media war being waged in the country. But they are important, and worthy of deep reflection as the campaign for the presidency is about, once again, to begin.
Read MORE in three continuing parts.
Kyle Pope is the editor in chief and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review.
Nah.
We’re at a time in our nations’ history where we’ve NEVER been. This reads like a typical armchair analysis of a typical political period … BUT IT’S NOT TYPICAL.
This piece is a four-part daytime drama show and is the perfect fodder for those types who were riveted by those soap operas. He said, she said, they did it, they didn’t do it.
This guy is a sideline commentator, third party removed who used statements and positions from all of the bad actors involved with going after Donald Trump, whether they were directly involved with the attempt to take him down or not … a gutless non-player who attempted to rehash Trump events over the last six years and make it sound like he was analyzing in infinite — shallow — detail. Basic cowardly commentating. Bullshit. This clown doesn’t have a clue what’s been going on.
The points he made clearly displays his stupidity — not ignorance — considering all of the supposed “interviewing of all involved”. I take it the New York Slimes, Washington Toilet Paper, Commie News Network, MSDNC, etc. were major contributors to his analytical diatribe.
I just scanned Part 1 through Part 4 and saw no mention of Gen. Mike Flynn except the period where he was “tried” by a kangaroo court and pled guilty, Kash Patel, Devin Nunes or any of the other critical players who closely worked with Trump, so it’s extremely doubtful he investigated at *any* granular level.
In other words, an opinion from someone in the nosebleed seats. Where’s the beef? There’s no meat, only beans. He said, she said.
He clearly has no idea that our Federal government was a corporation driven by indebtedness to England due to an agreement in 1871 that Trump ended in 2016, what Devolution is about, no concept of what the Q military team went through to rescue countless thousands of abducted children, recover likely trillions of dollars worth of gold from the Vatican, why Trump created the Space Force, how Trump had the world on the brink of world peace and the depth of detail Trump has gone to fight corruption and eliminate it from our Federal government. His tone reflected the type of person he is … a typical commentator with no balls or backbone. A commentator, nay a typical critic. A dime a dozen.
His whole exercise might appear to some sheep as if he’s an intelligent analyst … in my opinion he’s justifying his existence and his paycheck. He’s a typical spectator who is afraid to pick a position and take a firm stance, good or bad, right or wrong. If he had been ‘red pilled’ this article series WOULD NOT EXIST.
Shallow. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
I have no patience nor will I give my limited and valuable (to me) time for someone like him and the nonsense that he pens… we have way too much of that kind of “participation”. Don’t even tell me “we need to see the views of others”. His ‘view’ is just noise, nothing more. I’m definitely not interested in his shallow opinion. Like a certain body part everybody has one.
The only place I can imagine his fodder would be discussed would be with some people who had been throwing back some Corona beers on Friday night and this kind of shit reflecting their primitive, shallow mental ‘aptitude’. Certainly no intellectual substance.
And yeah, that’s just my opinion. That’s how I *really feel*.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Post-worthy. Watch for it.