Cover image courtesy of The Federalist
For myself at least, according to whatever algorithms are linked to my Google account, a certain CNN column keeps popping up at the very top of all my midterm elections-related searches. It’s called Midterm elections: Why this one scares me, and it might be the most factually unfound piece of Leftist nonsense I’ve found on a major news source yet.
The article was written by a former travelling press secretary from the Obama years, Jen Psaki. The writing of the article and its serious lack of any facts, data or evidence causes me to severely doubt she’s any smarter than a rock.
The article calls to emotion incessantly, with the author describing her own emotions as well as the emotions of Democrats and Democratic voters across the country. Firstly, as we’ve already established she’s not the sharpest tool in the shed, I doubt she possesses the omnipotence to know exactly how anybody who didn’t vote for Trump feels about everything. Secondly, not to sound like Ben Shapiro, but because I can’t make this statement without bringing his image to mind – feelings aren’t facts! Emotions aren’t data, and they’re incredibly subjective!
What good, reliable reporting needs to be based on is not your subjective interpretation of how subjective individuals subjectively feel, but information. Here are all the times in the article Psaki references a personal or collective emotion:
- “When you win, it is a feeling of elation, often followed by extreme fatigue. When you lose, it is disappointment and second-guessing, followed by extreme fatigue.”
- “The aftermath of the election was of course shock, but not just because of the fact that President-elect Donald Trump and not President-elect Hilary Clinton was coming to the White House the following day. It was a shock because of what it said about the country we lived in.”
- “Yes, we had missed something… [about] the anger and dissatisfaction of large swaths of white America who had long voted for Democrats.”
- “Our confidence stemmed from an assumption that the fight against racism, misogyny and bigotry would win out.”
- “This year there is no question Democratic enthusiasm is way up.”
- “We had, all together as Americans, “bent the moral arc toward justice.”
- “Now we are two years into this horrific experiment of having a racist and sexist failed businessman with no interest or appetite for strategic global engagement as our commander in chief. And it turns out we aren’t okay.”
And my personal favourite:
The next day in the White House was not filled with strategy sessions about how we would preserve President Obama’s record. It was filled with hugs, and private and group conversations trying to reassure members of our White House staff, including many who were African-American, Latino American, Muslim-American and LGBT, that it was going to be okay. That they would be okay and the country would be okay.
Oh, the humanity! The children, won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!
As Stefan Molyneux would say,
The emotions are toned down for the next half of the article, where she brings up – guess what – not facts, but identity politics and attacks on Trump’s character, never actually making an argument or talking about policy:
- Accuses Trump of a long history of racism
- Brings up ‘grab ’em by the pussy’
- Brings up his (deserved) defence of Brett Kavanaugh
- Shames him for standing by candidates accused of but not convicted for other things (DUE PROCESS, REMEMBER?)
- Brings up ‘hate’ and the Muslim ban
- Brings up Russian collusion, which still hasn’t been conclusively proven to have been done in favour of Trump
And here are all the facts she states:
I’m not exaggerating. She doesn’t link to a single study or article, and doesn’t cite any statistics.
She ends on this note:
President Trump will be running for re-election with an empowered base and a new line of bragging to take out to the campaign trail. The lesson will be that cracking down on immigration, fanning violence against the media and your opponents, and overtly racist campaign attacks and ads are not just fair game, but effective. That’s not who America has ever been, but we shouldn’t underestimate the potential for the President to do anything possible to gain re-election.
Now, THIS is fearmongering. The Left loves to talk about fearmongering, but what they call fearmongering is just the Right bringing up valid concerns rooted in reality. I was silenced on the Bernie Sanders For President subreddit for voicing concerns about the migrant caravan for ‘fearmongering.’ All I did was stick to the FACTS of the matter (as seen in our article And The Caravan Has All My Friends). Accusing individuals of ‘Islamophobia’ is a connected left-wing tactic that accuses skeptics of Islam of fearmongering, instead of facing the harsh truth of the disgusting and oppressive ideology.
This is actual fearmongering. It uses lies, rhetoric and emotion to suggest the country is in a dark, dark place if we don’t fight against Trump, when the reality is that the country’s been doing better than it has been in a really long time. The Left can’t stand that reality, so they’re trying to paint it a different way.
Now, let’s get to what’s really frightening, if you haven’t guessed what my point is going to be already. This is one of the most popular articles on the midterm elections right now. An article founded on genuine fearmongering, virtually no evidence, written by somebody who worked in politics (which gives it credibility, to most sheeple) published in America’s largest news source. This is what the liberal media is all about, the media that calls itself ‘fair,’ ‘factual’ and ‘unbiased.’ It’s no wonder the Left is getting kookier and kookier every day, when they can sell their ridiculous beliefs not to some fringe website dedicated to their positions, but to the most mainstream of mainstream media itself. Also, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS A POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR CNN? When I was in journalism school, we were begged never to make our political opinions public, out of fear it would contaminate our journalistic integrity. I see CNN does not hold its contributors to any such a standard.
-Senior Editor A.