We have previously discussed polling showing the media at record lows in public trust. Well, the latest survey from Gallup shows that the media hit another all-time low. What is most impressive is that plummeting readers, revenues, and layoffs have done little to convince the mainstream media that the problem is not the public but themselves. The only institution with a lower level of public trust is Congress, and that says a lot. It is like beating Ebola as the preferred communicable disease.Some 69 percent of Americans now say that they have no or little trust in the media. Only 31 percent say that they have a great deal or fair amount of trust. The trending line looks like the sales of buggy whips after the introduction of the Model T Ford. Gallop put it into sharp terms:
“About two-thirds of Americans in the 1970s trusted the “mass media — such as newspapers, TV and radio” either “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to “[report] the news fully, accurately and fairly.” By the next measurement in 1997, confidence had fallen to 53%, and it has gradually trended downward since 2003. Americans are now divided into rough thirds, with 31% trusting the media a great deal or a fair amount, 33% saying they do “not [trust it] very much,” and 36%, up from 6% in 1972, saying they have no trust at all in it.”
In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how journalists and journalism schools have destroyed their own profession by rejecting objectivity and engaging in open advocacy journalism. The mainstream media has long echoed the talking points of the left and the Democratic Party, particularly in its one-sided coverage of the last three elections.
While Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism.
We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.
Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll decried how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
The Washington Post’s former executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Lauren Wolfe, the fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.”
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism. Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.”
This is why the whole “Let’s Go Brandon” chant was as much a criticism of the media as President Biden. There is clearly an effort by owners like Jeff Bezos to change this culture rather than bankroll newspapers like the Washington Post vanity projects for the left.
Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:
“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
The response from staffers was to call for the new editors to be fired. One staffer complained, “We now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.
The question is whether viewers and readers can still be brought back into the fold. New media is expanding as citizens have looked elsewhere for news. In the meantime, some media outlets and organizations seem to have doubled down on the bias. Just last year, Washington Post reporter Cleve Wootson Jr. appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. The newspaper did not say a thing about the incongruity of one of its leading reporters calling for censorship.
After Trump was elected, NBC selected Yamiche Alcindor to return to the White House despite a history of alleged bias. Alcindor, who also worked for PBS, was criticized for often preceding questions with attacks on conservatives or over-the-top praise for Joe Biden or Democrats. While others saw raw political bias, Alcindor explained that it was her job to use journalism to bend the “moral arc toward justice.”
Recently, the White House Correspondent’s Association picked an anti-Trump comedian who promptly encouraged Trump not to come to the dinner, saying that no one wants to be in the same room with him.
In the meantime, “J schools” continue to dismiss objectivity and crank out journalists who are told to embrace activism as the public flees legacy media for new media.
For the moment, it seems like journalists are content to write for each other and about 30 percent of the public. The echo chamber is getting smaller and smaller. So are the staffs on the outlets. Without public trust, the media is just talking to itself as the public turns to citizen journalists and new media on blogs and social media.
As someone who has worked for three networks and written as a columnist for three decades, the decline of American media has been painful to watch. The industry has operated like a ship of fools with no regard for their viewers or readers. However, we need the media. The press plays a central role in our democracy as reflected in the press protections afforded under the First Amendment.
The effort to break this culture at outlets like the Post and L.A. Times is encouraging, but these polls indicate that time is of the essence.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
A women being gang-raped doesn’t have much leverage, either. She didn’t plan on being in such a state where weakness could be exploited.
It was an abuse of power. The presidency should not be used to fulfill sick fantasies about mistreating and humiliating people just so you can have a story to tell about how you stuck it to someone. He told us who he is in his books and we should have believed him.
The collapse of credibility by the NY Times and the Washington Post was a national tragedy. But the rise of a podcasters who examine issues deeply has been a national boon.
In the meantime, skimming the headlines from the legacy press and listening to ensemble debates on legacy cable news remains so intoxicated with programmed political narratives that it produces a net information loss.
Nothing to see here, move along, drink the Kool Aide, go back to sleep
“Behind the scenes is where the corrupt dealings take place, where self-dealing and conflicts of interest have become standard operating procedure. In a jaw-dropping indication of grift, Trump’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reportedly plans to cancel a $2.4 billion contract with Verizon to purportedly upgrade air traffic control communications systems by handing that lucrative contract over to Musk’s Starlink (a SpaceX technology). Executives at Musk’s X are also reportedly pressuring an advertising agency, Interpublic Group, to have its clients purchase more advertising on the social media platform; Interpublic took these comments as threats to their pending $13 billion merger with another ad agency. Not to be outdone, Trump used the Oval Office this week to broker negotiations between rival golf leagues, the PGA and LIV Golf (which he called “much more complicated” than the Russia-Ukraine peace talks). Trump’s golf courses will benefit from any deal he secures.”
You can read the whole article here…
https://contrarian.substack.com/p/the-democracy-index-9d9?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3719374&post_id=157931528&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2011m3&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Why would I read the whole article ?
Nothing you have said presents and issue. Musk is NOT responsible for what InterPublic thinks ?
Regardless, I would expect X under all circumstances to push InterPublic for more advertising – that is what businesses that make their money from advertising do.
As to the nonsense regarding InterPublics merger – Musk has no more voice than anyone else – and even the Trump Administration has little influence. influence – unless the merger would create a monopoly.
Personally all the anti-trust law should be wiped away – it is unconstitutional and has NEVER done the country a bit of good,
Governments fear of monopolies is unfounded. Breaking up the most famous monopoly of all time – Standard Oil made the rockefellers RICHER and raised prices to consumers.
The FACT is economics does not work as left wing nuts think.
If you eliminate the FTC – then there is no reason to fear Trump or Musks influence on it.
While frankly your fears of Musk and Trump are unfounded – what if they aren’t ?
All you are doing is PROVING the libertarian argument that govenrment should not have economic powers.
The way to cut corruption in governement is to cut power in government.
So long as that power exists – someone will bend it to their will.
If you succeed in blocking Billionaires from influencing government – some other Special Interest will replace them,
Crybaby loser ^^^
Your ranting that Trump brokered a golf deal ? Honestly ?
First HOW is that an excercise of Government Power ? Did Trump give the PGA a security guarantee ? Is NATO going to invade if LIV attacks PGA
Trump is an avid golfer who negotiated a deal between two Golf groups.
Trump will benefit from ANYTHING that benefits Golf.
He will benefit whether HE brokers a deal or someone else does.
He will benefit from any deal.
He may even benefit from no deal.
You have not got a clue what ACTUAL corruption looks like ?
I would note that as President Biden negotiated a deal between longshoreman and ports.
Hopefully the country benefited from that deal – though I doubt it and personally he should have stayed out of it.
Still he did. He also benefited from the deal – had there been a significant strike it would have made an even bigger mess of his presidency.
While I do not get your idiotic claim that Trump negotiated a deal between PGA and LIV as president.
SO WHAT IF HE DID ?
Every single deal that any president ever negotiates – either benefits that president or harms them – depending on how well that deal works out.
This was not like Biden selling Government power to the highest bidder to F#$K over Ukraine in 2015.
it was not like Biden taking money for the Chinese for his influence in government.
You wouldn’t like it if Clinton had done it.
“Your ranting that Trump brokered a golf deal ? Honestly ?
First HOW is that an excercise of Government Power ? ”
It’s the argument you used against Biden. You accused Biden of “selling the office” without evidence. Here you’re excusing Trump of doing the same thing because he’s an avid golfer. Plus he benefits by making money off the deal when it’s his golf courses that benefit. That’s the kind of corruption you and Turley constantly oppose. Now it’s ok because Trump is in office.
Maybe starlink is cheaper
Whoever controls the flow of information to the public, controls the vote.
Unbiased, free access to accurate information allows the public to educate themselves on important issues and governance. Turn the mainstream media into Pravda, however, and you tip the scales with your entire body weight.
In a true free market – which DEPSITE Biden and Obama’s efforts we mostly have – Turning the MSM into Pravda State Media, results in the rise of the new media.
And it results in “Unbiased, free access to accurate information allows the public to educate themselves on important issues and governance.”
Free speech is important – but Freedoms are all interconnected – The freedom created by the internet has made the effective supression of free speech – without TOTAL internet censorship – nearly impossible.
unlikely Turley I an not bemoaning the collapse in Trust in the MSM.
It is the cause of the rise of new media.
This is what economists call “Creative Destruction”
the MSM can fix itself or it can die.
MSNBC WaPo etc are NOT indispensable.
They can earn the trust of the public or they can commit Hari Kari and die – they appear to have chosen the later.
It is weird that anyone on a blog that celebrates freedom would oppose Zelensky instead of Putin.
The reasons offered to oppose Zelensky could just as well have applied to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin in a twisted sort of way.
Crybaby loser ^^^
“It is weird that anyone on a blog that celebrates freedom would oppose Zelensky instead of Putin.” Better to say that is “weird” to see the conflict in personal terms.
The conflict is not between Putin and Zelensky but between two neighboring nations that have both a common history and separate histories, which are similar in religion, language and race, but also dissimilar in some ways in each of these categories. Lurking in the background is the “sin” of the Ukranian Holocaust caused by the Russian Communist Party in the mid-1930’s. We need to try to understand both countries. It is a tragic conflict. Empathy, not self-righteous cant, is what is called for.
Russia cannot ignore our involvement in Ukranian affairs, including the nullification of a Presidential election. A great power like Russia, will react with alarm when another great power camps itself on its doorstep. We threatened nuclear war when the Soviet Union put nuclear weapons in Cuba. And we did not even have a common border with Cuba.
Ukraine is a victim not only of Russia but of the United States and the Nato countries who have used it to weaken Russia. If this war continues, Ukraine will be the biggest loser. We will drain it dry of its life-blood to feed the war-zeal of our reckless foreign policy establishment.
edwardmahl,
Great comment.
Good should go wherever it wants, Evil should not.
There’s no moral equivalence.
Ed, don’t 4get Reagan’s sabotage of chernobyl taking away it’s farmland while radiating much of Europe.
Such BS
#74 Zelensky and putin are examples of European suicide. The internal actors were manipulated to nuke themselves. The US will have no part in the destruction. DJT went in as a peacemaker.
And now a word from Clayton Bigsby (Dave Chappelle).
😉
DON’T LET THE LIBERAL MEDIA TELL YOU HOW TO THINK AND FEEL. IF YOU HAVE HATE IN YOUR HEART, LET IT OUT.
Chappell is a lousy comedian. And borrrrrrrring.
Crybaby loser ^^^^
The “cantankerous fools,…narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid” have been amongst for centuries; they always will be. Now they just seem more numerous because of the many platforms available to everyone.
Of course there were scientists who thought the evidence favoring DNA was inconclusive and preferred to believe that genes were protein molecules. Francis (Crick), however, did not worry about these skeptics. Many were cantankerous fools who unfailingly backed the wrong horses. One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Excerpt From
Watson, James. “The Annotated and Illustrated Double Helix.” Simon & Schuster
ISBN-13: 978-1476715490
https://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Illustrated-Double-Helix/dp/1476715491
Estovir-I would have to say, regretfully, that James Watson was correct. You have to have studies that are meticulously done with total openness of your study and a willingness to show your results and data when requested. It also has to be repeatedly confirmed by other studies. This rule is broken all the time. And just like all other humans these scientists have their biases and prejudices and they will not surrender them easily or openly until forced to. Physicians are almost as bad.
#74. The double helix DNA is none other than Jacob’s ladder upon which the angels ascend and descend, Estovir.
The way Zelensky handles things maybe we will get Ukranian rare earths from Russia.
In the eye of the American people, the Journalism industry today has done to “legacy” media outlets what Dylan Mulvaney did to Anheuser-Busch. An overwhelming majority reject what they represent and have turned to other brands that are more to their liking. AB’s reputation might be repairable if they apologize and admit they made a mistake with that campaign. Legacy media on the other hand won’t get off so easily. Their sins directly targeted the minds of the American people to manipulate and coerce them into supporting actions that have done inexcusable harm to their security and that of this country. I don’t see them coming back from that.
Especially when activists claim “I am a biased journalist, and I am fine with that”. She has NO IDEA what Journalism really is. She is a mouthpiece for the Progressive party. Journalism is dead.
Dear Prof Turley,
The ‘media’ at large may be poorly thought of, and rightly so, but rest assured that I will always judge the semi-blogger by the contents of his blog. The thing itself speaks.
The media reports on Zelenskiy’s Oval Office Waterloo have been rather disturbing, imo. What if Russia broke the ceasefire? What if Russia conquers Europe? What if Russia crossed the ocean, unprovoked, and full-scale? What if Putin drove a tank down Pennsylvania Ave.. . and made Lyndsey Graham ‘feel it’?
These are all vexing, probing questions by the media. Risking WWIII, like that.
*If I had been president, you can be sure there would be no war. .. think of the savings.
According to the Index of Economic Freedom:
Volodymyr has 26 more Nations to hustle and shake-down for 150 Billion each.
WE the People have done our part and ‘gave at the office’, Bidens Office.
Singapore
Switzerland
Ireland
Taiwan
New Zealand
Estonia
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Norway
Australia
Germany
South Korea
Canada
Latvia
Cyprus
Iceland
Lithuania
Czech Republic
Chile
Austria
United Arab Emirates
[ DONE – United States – hustled for at least 150 Billion we know of ]
Mauritius
Uruguay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
Volody, Volody, Volody, … You don’t shake-down a President in his Oval Office and in front of his subordinates (V.P.),
You Just Don’t Stupid. Now go home pack your bags and family and go on vacation, far far away, for a long long time.
Volody is done. He won’t last a month back in Ukraine. One of Hunter’s buddies will take him out.
“Summary of Oval Office Meeting, February 28, 2025”
Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States:
https://x.com/i/status/1895712679903613436
Alternatively
https://x.com/i/status/1895550273692869066
Elements of the ongoing Obama Coup D’etat in America against President Trump got to Zelensky, causing the deliberate detonation of a political “bomb” in the Oval Office as an act of treason.
__________
Article 3, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
“Regardless of how Zelensky did the math, the bottom line is the same: no money is missing. Also important is that most of the money is not delivered directly to Ukraine but handled by trusted agencies, mostly the U.S. military, the Department of State/USAID, and the World Bank. The image of pallets of cash being sent to Ukraine is inaccurate. This doesn’t say whether the United States should or should not provide more aid, but it does provide better information for making that decision.”
– Mark F. Cancian (Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, ret.), Senior Adviser, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
“Regardless of how Democrats did the math, the bottom line is the same: money is missing. Also important is that most of the money is delivered directly to Ukraine’s midget wannabe dictator. The image of pallets of cash being sent to Ukraine is an understatement. This doesn’t say whether the Democrats should or should not be provided any more oyxgen at the expense of others but it does provide better information for making that decision.”
Margarita F. Sanchez (Lt General, U.S. Marine Corps.), Big Kahuna, Universal Wayout Space Program, Center for Troll Busters and Saul Alinsky Monitors in Uranus
“Trusted agencies”?
Now would that be the same Dept. of Defense which has failed an audit for the past seven years and has no idea where 824 billion taxpayer dollars went?
Or the same USAID that squandered hundreds of millions dolled out to idiotic ideological causes and NGO’s who in turn donate the kickbacks like a boom-a-rang.? Or the trusted World Bank that has been involved in more scandals than Sean Combs is facing? Even Google AI spit this out:
“Bridge International Academy scandal”
The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the World Bank’s private sector arm, invested in Bridge schools in Kenya.
Nearly two dozen students alleged sexual abuse at Bridge schools.
The IFC was accused of turning a blind eye to the allegations and not compensating victims.
An investigation found that the IFC failed to identify or assess child sex abuse risks.
The IFC and Bridge attempted to obstruct the investigation.
The World Bank has acknowledged wrongdoing and apologized to the victims.
“Doing Business” report controversy”
The World Bank was pressured to boost China’s rankings in its “Doing Business” report.
An inquiry found that the IMF chief pushed staff to boost China’s rankings.
The World Bank suspended its “Doing Business” index over data “irregularities”.
“Other World Bank scandals”
Funding for expensive, for-profit private hospitals that deny service to patients who cannot pay
Lack of transparency in investments
Questionable flows of taxpayer money into tax havens
Retaliation against whistle-blowers
But yeah, sure we trust em.
Yes, the same
Bullshoi. The funds go to accounts controlled by Ukraine and then are doled out in a 60%-40% relationship, with 60% going to various Democrat-controlled entities and the remaining 40% going to military equipment and propaganda. The 60% is the part that interests Zelenskyy the most, since that loot represents kickback and payoff money. Biden and his cronies still reap royalties, with funds placed in the Swiss and Cayman Islands accounts and Zelenskyy and his cronies have their own accounts there. It’s all about graft and greed. War is very profitable to Democrats and to Zelenskyy. And with peace and an election in Ukraine, Zelenskyy would be gone in an instant, never to be heard from again.
General Milley gave Ukraine used equipment left in Afghanistan and the military equipment for Ukraine paid for wasn’t made at all but Milley and friends cashed in. Bait and switch.
Duh
It exposed the person who doesn’t want peace. He’s done.
#74 DJT summed it up succinctly, he can return when he wants peace.
Zelensky doesn’t want peace. The Ukraine doesn’t want peace. They want to fight to the end of their utter destruction. Is it .25 or .33 % of Ukraine is dead from this war?
Zelensky turned down the deal because he doesn’t want peace. He wants war. The USA doesn’t support a war that annihilates nations. The EU can decide what it wants.
That’s the rap.
Zelensky was playing to Schumer and Hollywood. He’s an actor. Disgraceful.guy…
Attribution: Floyd
Nah, #74.
Yes, Susan Rice and Zelensky have regurgitated the same talking points.
OT
Volodymyr Zelenskyy must immediately and without further ado “bend the knee,” “kiss the ring,” and apologize to the President of the United States of America, Americans, and America.
No. Not just them. But to all those Ukrainians whom he has conscripted, sent to the front lines with barely any training, and died. Those are the ones who truly are owed an apology. He needs to apologize to President Trump for being disrespectful. To the American people for being disrespectful. And for embezzling all that money that Biden enabled him to do.
He’s responsible in part for the deaths of over 1 million people, we gave him the weapons.
I was disappointed that Zelensky, who in some ways campaigned against Trump, chose a public press conference to make faces, roll his eyes, and snipe at Trump, while asking for billions of dollars in financial and military aid. Ukraine, Western Europe, Canada, and the US need to come to an agreement on what victory looks like for Ukraine, and how to achieve it without open Allied war with Russia.
I do wish Trump had cut off Zelensky’s drama more cooly, but anyone who steps into the ring to box Trump will find a pugilist.
^^ ridiculous… Trump is done with him. Zelensky is reckless.
#74. That just don’t roll my biscuit cutter, anon.
Journalism is nonbinary.
There is free news, and there is communist propaganda.
People must accept and adapt to the outcomes of freedom, or communism will subjugate people.
The Constitution compels Americans to accept and adapt to the outcomes of freedom and does not allow subjugation by communism.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
#74. The lefts hysteria and persuasive bunk is easily dismissed. Hands waving and flapping, yelling, emotional words, breathless anxiety riddled delivery are identifiers. ..
there is advocacy and there is journalism, there is no advocacy journalism
#74 advocacy journalism is called persuasive speech and writing. It always has an emotional component. Luv how the left always changes vocabulary from persuasive journalism to advocacy journalism and yes , men can have babies. Dumpster
You are evil demons who have it too good in this country.
You deserve to be punished for being the way that you are.
You are of such character and nature that you deserve to have all of your property destroyed by nuclear weapons.
You deserve to suffer.
You deserve to be made miserable.
You deserve to be reduced to piles of ashes and bone.
You deserve to experience cruelty yourselves.
I would love to see it happen to you.
Authentic Frontier Gibberish
😂 best scene evah!
I served in the USMC.
I have a DD214 under honorable conditions.
What do you have?
Your words have returned to you. Be careful…
Well, Joy Reid certainly received some much needed edification about the joys of constrained objectivity.
The American Founders did not admit the likes of Joy Reid into this country to become citizens.
The Naturalization Acts persisted for 73 years and were never legitimately or legally abrogated.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 (four iterations for maximal clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
I note that in terms the naturalization laws, the key year and Act for black eligibility was the Naturalization Act of 1870 — https://immigrationhistory.org/item/naturalization-act-of-1870/
On January 1, 1863, immigration law compelled the compassionate repatriation of freed slaves who could not be admitted to become citizens; Lincoln was negligent, derelict, and high-criminal in not performing his executive duty and supporting the Constitution.
Everything Lincoln did, subsequent to his unconstitutional denial of not prohibited and fully constitutional secession, was and remains invalid, illegitimate, illegal, and unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, the improperly ratified, antithetical, and wholly unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments.”
After robbing a bank, it is not legal for the criminal to spend the money obtained during the bank robbery.
You conveniently left out the fact that the Supreme Court held In Texas v White (1869) that there is no constitutional right for a State to secede. In addition, there is nothing in the Dred Scott decision (1857), immigration law, or the Emancipation Proclamation that required the repatriation of free blacks in 1863.
You conveniently left out the fact that the singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
You conveniently left out the fact that the correct, honest, and precise Supreme Court of 2022 struck down the false and corrupt Supreme Court of 1973 regarding its partial, biased, and depraved “decision” on abortion.
What happened in the Oval Office was a case of “kick the cat”.
Trump finds it easier to kick Zelensky than Putin.
Putin is the one that deserves a kicking, not Zelensky.
It is rather cowardly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_the_cat
Yes, Poor Misunderstood Zelenskyy just sat there the whole time, and he didn’t say a word! Nary a peep from him!
Loved the face palm by Zel’s U.S. Ambassador. Classic!
Give Aninny a dose of reality
https://x.com/i/status/1895712679903613436
I laughed at the photos of the poor Ukrainian ambassador’s despair, though felt guilty later. Ukraine has suffered for years, and it is stuck in a stalemate without more support from the US. I was shocked that Zelensky decided a press conference was the right moment to make faces, roll his eyes, and snipe at Trump, who of course scrapped right back at him in offense.
By comparison, while former President Biden was actively interfering with Israel rescuing hostages from Rafah, PM Netanyahu diplomatically avoided voicing how he felt about that to the American press. I remember watching him walk that line, saying he appreciated America’s support, and so on, while everyone knew he was at his wit’s end with the interference.
When you need billions in urgent military aid from another country, you don’t quarrel with their leader on national TV.
I think Trump could have cut off Zelensky’s drama just as firmly, but cooler, but was disappointed that Zelensky would start such a spectacle when Ukraine doesn’t have time for this.
“I think Trump could have cut off Zelensky’s drama just as firmly, but cooler,”
IMO you are correct, but since the press spins so much against Trump, he made it clear what was happening. The deal was set over the preceding days and this was supposed to be a photo op. People can now refer to the tape.
Squeeky,
Exactly! Zelensky expected the Trump admin to be just like the Biden admin and give him everything he wants. And just like Biden, Zelensky gets his “10%.” One CIA estimate had it, at the time of the report, Zelensky and his cronies had embezzled some $400 million.
350 billion, oh much more than 400 million
Yeah, I keep waiting on the leak video of ole Zel’s trotting out onto the tarmac loading multiple heavy black unmarked baggage onto a jet.
“See, what happened was…”
https://www.csis.org/analysis/where-missing-100-billion-us-aid-ukraine
So you divide the square root of pi, by the Ukrainian gold price on the NYSE, and multiply that by the number of suitcases in the palace and…
#74. The missing 100 billion? It was left in Afghanistan as military equipment. It was charged to your account and later sold to you.
Perhaps what happened in the Oval Office was The Short Man Syndrome – Zelensky is one inch shorter than Napoleón.
The Napoleon complex, also known as Napoleon syndrome and short-man syndrome, is a purported condition normally attributed to people of short stature, with overly aggressive or domineering social behavior. It implies that such behavior is to compensate for the subject’s physical or social shortcomings. Both commonly and in psychology, the Napoleon complex is regarded as a derogatory social stereotype.[1] The Napoleon complex is named after Napoleon Bonaparte, the first emperor of the French, who was estimated to have been 5′ 2″ tall (in pre–metric system French measures), which equals around 1.67 meters, or just under 5′ 6″ in imperial measure.[2] He was of average height among all men in France, but was much shorter than the elite soldiers, aristocrats and high officials that he met with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex#:~:text=The%20Napoleon%20complex%2C%20also%20known,subject's%20physical%20or%20social%20shortcomings.
Good point, size does matter.
Well, at least Mr. Z still has his piano-playing digit 😉
#74. Sorry buddy, can’t help you
It’s not the size of the boat, it’s the motion of the ocean…
Arrrrrrrrr!
“You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
🤣🤣🤣
BaBooooom!
ATS – that is irrelevant.
Zelensky has no leverage.
Putin does.
Zelensky will be back – because if he wishes to keep ANY of his country, he must come back.
You can attack Putin all you want – if you do not give a schiff about Peace.
If you actualy want Peace – you need to stroke Putin’s ego in public.
So what is it that you want ?
Do you want peace ?
Or do you want public moral superiority over Putin and the slow destruction of Ukraine ?
If you actually want Ukraine to prevail over Russia – that is easily accomplished.
Send Troops to assist Ukraine.
But neither the US nor any nation in the EU is willing to do that.
We have sent Ukraine F16’s and M1A1’s and Himars, and Patriots.
And all that has accomplished is prolonging the inevitable.
The Ukrainians are brave and have fought magnificently,
But they are outnumbered 5:1 and they are only inflicting 3:1 casualties.
They are slowly losing a war of attrition.
The only thing that will change that is more boots on the ground.
The US and EU would be sending troops to Ukraine IF Ukraine really were in the national interests of the US or EU.
The Europeans particularly would send Troops if they honestly beleived Putin was capable of expanding the conflict beyond Ukraine.
The Poles would independently be sending troops to Ukraine – if they Beleived that Putin was capable of expanding Beyond Ukraine.
If anyone beleived Putin was truly trying to restore the USSR – Poland is next.
Does Putin WANT to restore the USSR ? Probably. Is Russia capable of it ? Not now, and likely not ever.
John Say,
Well said. While I do not question the bravery of the Ukrainian troops, I do question some seven million Ukrainian refugees in other countries, some 41% are males. And, Zelensky has press gangs out, conscripting males into the military. Then there is the desertion rate of Ukrainian troops. I read of even one Ukrainian solider who went into the military by his own free will, only to desert later. He saw it for what it was, a no win situation. We tried to train them in combined arms which takes a lot of not only training but discipline and no small degree of intestinal fortitude. People whom have never served, whom have never had a shot taken at them do not understand that what every solider, air man, sailor and Marine wants is peace.
“The dead know only one thing, it is better to be alive.”
— Pvt Joker, FMJ
I don’t question either fleeing the country or the desertion rate when the much vaunted USA that is the ally fighting beside you in Afghanistan is only giving you old blankets to wrap your dead in.
Did you read anything about the desertion rate of those Ukrainian troops who were fighting beside us in Afghanistan and Iraq from the first day to the last – while we refused to honor our commitment to fight beside them after they were invaded back home in Ukraine. Why weren’t they deserting there if they lack training, discipline, and fortitude?
I think most soldiers, especially Marines, understand the importance of an American giving their word to an ally.
So far, not a single shot has been fired at an American serviceman providing that promised military defense to Ukraine anywhere remotely close to Ukraine.
Lots of Political Populism Beer Goggles available for those who want to wear them while commenting on Ukraine.
John Say says: ATS – that is irrelevant. Zelensky has no leverage.>/i>
Still got the Political Populism Beer Goggles on where Ukraine is the subject I see. While deflecting from the subject in a way that would make Dennis envious. Okay then… IF (a very big “IF”) that is irrelevant, Zelinskyy has “no hand, no leverage” for two specific American root causes that don’t involve Zelinsky.
1. A previous Republican president and Congress promised the Ukraine leader of the day that Ukraine having 3,000+ tactical and strategic warheads, made Ukraine a US National Security priority because we were terrified of WW III if Ukraine continued having those nuclear weapons.
And so, in exchange for Ukraine surrendering their nukes in their trusting belief that America would stand by it’s commitment to provide our military might to serve as the replacement Ukraine deterrent and defense, Ukraine surrendered those nuclear cards they had and put their national security in the hands of their trusted new ally, our USA.
So much so that after 9/11, while they weren’t attacked and had no hajji threat at home in Ukraine, they were one of the first nations to spend treasure and troops serving beside ours from the first days to the last in Afghanistan. Doing so voluntarily, despite the fact Afghanistan was “not their war”, as many of us love to claim about Ukraine.
For some twisted and dangerous nuclear irony, the nuclear weapons they surrendered on the strength of our promises were directed by us to be given to the new Russian Federation, at the time a far lesser nuclear power below Ukraine who was at that time third in the world when it came to nukes. Where they are now aimed not just at Ukraine, but at us here in the USA as well.
How’s THAT for a win resulting from a beautiful American deal!
Of course, if you believe that Putin still would have invaded despite the real possibility being that he and everyone he knew would become part of the new Moscow nuclear glass parking lot, then you can claim that Ukraine surrendering those nukes in exchange for America’s word and promises is “irrelevant” to why there have been two invasions and an ongoing war in Ukraine.
Bush could deter Putin from doing that, Trump could deter Putin from doing that – but Ukrainian nukes NEVER would have deterred Putin????
2. The other reason for Zelinskyy now having no leverage is that FOUR successive American presidential administrations have reneged on America’s promise to it’s ally. Reneging on that promise while Ukraine was voluntarily fighting beside us in Afghanistan (and Iraq while that front of the WOGT was being waged). Reneging on those promises to our ally while both friendly and adversarial nations watched and gauged how trustworthy we are for our allies.
President Obama
President Trump in his first term (improving on Obama by finally supplying some weapons doesn’t get it done as a defense)
President Biden – or whoever was playing the part of Biden while he was The Oval Office House Plant providing Obama’s Third Term.
President Trump yet again. Demanding access to rare earth minerals while our contribution is to give Ukrainians weapons to die with is not providing a military deterrent or defense.
I’m reminded of the justified whining we did about our NATO allies who would not honor their commitment to us by sending combat troops that would go outside the wire to engage in combat after 9/11.
Honest real politik would be for some American president to openly confess that once we got from Ukraine what we wanted as far as surrendering their nukes and years of fighting beside us in Afghanistan, it was better for America to renege on the deal. Most Americans apparently don’t care about that deal now. And we’d rather renege on a promise than see any American die in or around Ukraine because we honored our commitment.
Besides, now we can use the excuse that we previously used to convince Ukraine to give up their nukes – we’re once again terrified of WW III involving nukes and Ukraine.
Why Zelinsky believes that he should trust any American replacement security promises for Ukraine would be honored by any future American president, or Trump in his second term when he didn’t honor them in his first term is what puzzles me. The White House Deal Maker In Chief didn’t even come up with something like this rare earth minerals economic treaty in his first term, just two years into what was still a relatively new war in Ukraine.
Zelinskyy hoping for yet another American security promise puzzles me as much as Ukraine willingly continuing to have some of their troops voluntarily fighting beside ours in Afghanistan while they were fighting without American troops beside them in Ukraine after we did nothing to deter or repel two Putin invasions.
Isolationist theories to the contrary, while marching off into the weeds with “what ifs” about the other European nations who WEREN’T part of the compact to defend Ukraine we made because we were terrified of WW III if Ukraine had those nukes is just minutia to deflect and distract from the fact America reneged on promises of military defense to an ally fighting beside it in OUR war.
Zelinskyy probably WILL be back. Simply because by America continuing to betray Ukraine (while whining about the financial cost while keeping our military at home) as they were voluntarily fighting beside us in Afghanistan, the only other option they have left is to cut a deal with Russia. And what would that remote possibility look like?
Obtaining some peace and recovered some sovereignty by putting their faith in Putin promises instead of more American promises.
Giving Putin exclusive access to those rare earth minerals we lack and so badly want access to, along with allowing Russia to put whatever military bases and assets throughout Ukraine they want, while Ukraine at least gets peace and some version of sovereignty over the areas being fought over.
America does not have a special immunity from the effects of second and third order consequences from making very bad decisions. Particularly when our presidents make those decisions in the open, in front of the eyes of the world’s leaders, and to hell with what American voters are arguing over back home in America.
Pretending second and third order consequences don’t exist is not a recipe for success nor for long term security.
You raise some good points.
I would add that another risk of Ukraine falling is its uranium reserves, the largest deposits in Europe. I don’t particularly want Russia to get that uranium.
It appears to me that that when Russia first invaded Crimea, was the time to throw American support behind Ukraine, hard, and without reserve. Once Russia conquered Crimea and Donbas, it would take American troops on the ground, at war with Russia, to get them out.
The same is true when Russia next invaded Ukraine. That was not the time to slow walk support. We’ve sent billions in aid to Ukraine, yet the logistics of that aid has been sluggish and poorly timed.
Zelensky and the Ukrainians obviously want the return of Ukrainian territory in Crimea and Donbas, as well as any land now held by Russia. Ukraine holds some Russian territory at this point, and a swap has been suggested to restore at least some lost territory to Ukraine. However, just as you said, in order to meet Zelensky’s desire for Crimea and Donbas, it would mean the US engaging in open war with Russia, which would drag in allies.
Trump decided this was an opportunity to address the barrel over which China has the US, in regards to rare Earth minerals. However, what was first proposed was so decidedly against Ukraine’s interests that Zelensky was guaranteed to turn in down. It involved giving up a large amount of these minerals, in perpetuity, for help now. That was a negotiating starting point, but unfortunately, it hasn’t gone anywhere.
Zelensky and Trump are oil and water. Zelensky has been, in a way, campaigning against Trump, while simultaneously wanting billions of dollars more in aid from the US, as well as significant military supplies.
Worse, it appears that the US has not yet identified what “winning” in Ukraine looks like. Is it just a truce and Russia no longer aggressing? The return of Crimea and Donbas? The return of just the new Ukrainian territory that Russia holds? That was not decided by the US since the start of this war, and would take delicate negotiations. Trump is impatient to end the war as of yesterday, while Zelensky feels he can’t give in on certain points.
The mistake here began when Zelensky chose a press conference to snipe at Trump, to which Trump and Vance took great offense, again in public. Such disagreements happen in diplomacy, but they are not supposed to happen in public. Zelensky should have refrained from making faces and off the cuff complaints, and Trump should have more smoothly reminded him such negotiations will not play out in front of the press, without letting the temperature rise on his side. The press is for shaking hands, smiling, and saying they’re working together on mutual goals, while internally seething. Zelensky NEEDS support from the US as well as Europe. He shot himself in the foot by losing his temper with Trump in front of the press, who was more than happy to give it right back to him, instead of just firmly shutting down that line of discussion. Margaret Thatcher was excellent at rocking someone back on his heels while remaining unruffled.
The silver lining is that Europe is motivated to increase their own involvement in Ukraine, including funding. Estimates on how much the US has given to Ukraine are difficult to make. Although the DOD releases its own figures, significant funding flowed to Ukraine out of various additional agencies, including USAID, who rather infamously sent money to Ukraine without any line item descriptions. Another example is the money the US sent via NATO. As far as I’ve been able to tell, most of the funding so far from the UK to Ukraine is via loans, while the reverse is true for the US. However, given Ukraine is cratered, it’s doubtful those loans would be repaid. The US DOD alone has given Ukraine $183 billion, while the UK has only provided $16 billion (unless it, too, funnels money through other agencies.) Europe increasing its funding to Ukraine fighting this war is a positive outcome of this contentious press conference.