by Patrick ➕follow (59) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 174 - 178 of 178 Search these comments
According to Millennial reporter Emma, the person benefiting the most from Trump’s post-Verdict criticism of the US justice system was Vladimir Putin! And right behind him, China. Emma didn’t quote Putin for this story — why should she? — she quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who correctly observed the Trump Verdict was “simply the elimination of political rivals by all possible means, legal and illegal.” Emma also took great umbrage that China’s Global Times noted the Verdict adds to the “farcical nature” of this election season.
How dare they.
Emma’s Millennial logic went like this: Trump says something about the Verdict, and then Russia and China say stuff about the Verdict. So … Whoops, Emma’s logic shorted out.
Don’t be angry, Emma is a progressive public school graduate. Emma can’t remember Russia or China ever criticizing the U.S. before Trump came along. This is a common logical fallacy called “recency bias,” where Emma myopically focused on the last four days while ignoring the last four decades of constant criticism from our geopolitical rivals.
The truth is, Emma is fretting because the Trump Verdict gives Russia and China their best arguments yet. In other words, if the U.S. justice system really were fair, transparent, and robust, it could easily withstand criticism from both domestic and foreign complainers, who’d have no power to undermine its legitimacy with a couple buzzwords and throwaway lines.
It’s actually an “Emporer has no clothes” moment. The AP is secretly worried that the US justice system is so brittle and so fragile that one single Kremlin spokesperson making a single critical remark about our two-tiered justice system can literally destroy democracy.
But the AP did, inadvertently, describe a real threat to democracy. The real threat to democracy was the AP’s autocratic assumption that words can destroy our democracy, and therefore, people like Trump need to be shut up, because their dangerous ideas could spread to even more dangerous people like a Kremlin spokesperson or a different reporter at the AP’s competitor, the Global Times. ...
Sometimes I suspect the AP isn’t actually a democratic media institution at all. Sometimes I wonder whether the AP is as committed to democratic ideals as it claims. I wonder if it might be willing to burn some core freedoms on the altar of sacrifice, hoping for the blessing of a hallucination of stability and control. Sometimes I wonder if the AP is not really a media platform at all, but instead is just a captured instrument of some three-letter agency nesting deep inside the bureaucratic state.
« First « Previous Comments 174 - 178 of 178 Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,205,768 comments by 14,328 users - DhammaStep online now