I recently read a CNN editorial by John Kirby titled, “How Sarah Sanders humiliated the press.” Mr. Kirby’s commentary centers around a media Q&A session with Trump’s press secretary, Sarah Sanders, on Monday 11/20/2017. She apparently started the press briefing by sharing something she was thankful for and then required each reporter to share something they were grateful for before they could ask a question. Mr. Kirby’s premise of the article is that Ms. Sanders’ requirement to share something in-line with the holiday season, somehow demeaned the reporters who participated, and denigrated the media as a whole.
It is fascinating to me how sensitive media commentators are and how quick they rush to the defense of their fellow journalistic brethren at any real or perceived slight by Trump and his administration. I realize this goes back to candidate Trump and his frequent attacks on and disrespect for the news media commentators. I find it entertaining that the self-described guardians of freedom of speech are so surprised when anyone in the political class or otherwise, a) call into question their motives, b) use their methods and means against them, and c) require some level of integrity in their reporting or commentary. This article is no exception.
Mr. Kirby equates Ms. Sanders’ thankfulness question with some larger sinister plot against the media. Talk about feeling threatened. Something so innocuous and, frankly, endearing shouldn’t be cause for insult or a point in a larger trend line of disrespect. The perceived offense says more about Mr. Kirby than it does about Ms. Sanders or the Trump Administration. He seems to be looking for anything to prove that Pres. Trump is a horrible, no good, rotten, very bad person.
Taken a step further and at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, the CNN commentary is why the media missed the groundswell support for Trump and underestimated the appeal his attacks on the media had with much of the electorate: they can’t get outside themselves and their personal or professional agendas!
It is fascinating to me how sensitive media commentators are and how quick they rush to the defense of their fellow journalistic brethren at any real or perceived slight by Trump and his administration. I realize this goes back to candidate Trump and his frequent attacks on and disrespect for the news media commentators. I find it entertaining that the self-described guardians of freedom of speech are so surprised when anyone in the political class or otherwise, a) call into question their motives, b) use their methods and means against them, and c) require some level of integrity in their reporting or commentary. This article is no exception.
Mr. Kirby equates Ms. Sanders’ thankfulness question with some larger sinister plot against the media. Talk about feeling threatened. Something so innocuous and, frankly, endearing shouldn’t be cause for insult or a point in a larger trend line of disrespect. The perceived offense says more about Mr. Kirby than it does about Ms. Sanders or the Trump Administration. He seems to be looking for anything to prove that Pres. Trump is a horrible, no good, rotten, very bad person.
Taken a step further and at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, the CNN commentary is why the media missed the groundswell support for Trump and underestimated the appeal his attacks on the media had with much of the electorate: they can’t get outside themselves and their personal or professional agendas!
Comments