As one who is angered by the new president’s deforming reality daily to suit his purposes while also blaming the media for creating “fake news,” I feel even more anger today at the the liberal media for the poor job it is doing covering the raucous Republican congressional town meetings being held this week. In short, I’m accusing them of creating some fake news.
It seems they have decided on a story line and are sticking to it. Much of the attention is paid to the anger shown by “constituents” while drawing an analogy to the Tea Party anger expressed in 2009 and after. And TV pundits rehash these events suggesting the Republican party should take notice of “constituent” discontent as it might impact future elections as it did in Tea Party halcyon days.
What baloney. I put “constituents” in quotes because it is a cover for not really analyzing the make up of these crowds. Who are these people at these events, especially the outspoken angry ones? I would bet most expressing anger didn’t vote for Trump and the fervent Trump backers who would counter that anger with their own didn’t bother to show up because they won. Look for them at later town meetings if they come to have buyer’s remorse.
So if this is primarily a crowd of angry democrats yelling at Republican congressmen, where’s the news value? It is not news. It is what one might expect given the organizing powers on both left and right these days.
While it might be a first, I agree with much of a Trump tweet, the one on Tuesday saying: “The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!” The anger is not so-called but real but the protests wouldn’t look similar if there were not similar elements of organizing. Don’t know what Trump’s “sad” about, but what makes me sad is the shallow level of journalistic coverage, especially of the TV variety.
I suggest that a deep look would reveal there isn’t much here to look at. Maybe I’m wrong but would like to be proven so by some real research as opposed to the puff impressionistic pieces I’ve seen.
I’ve done quite a bit of surfing of the internet and can’t find a single piece that really tries to analyze the composition of one of these town meetings or exactly who helped organize the collective response. As to the latter point, at least some organizational agents are occasionally mentioned, like Indivisible, which provides such things as instructions for organizing anti-Trump efforts. With cell phones and organizational guidance on the net, getting a protest effort together against Trump doesn’t need many if any paid activists.
To repeat, what I see at these protests is an outpouring of anti-Trump anger mostly from those people, like me, who didn’t vote for him. So where’s the news?
As to the analogy to the rise and impact of the Tea Party, it doesn’t hold up. The Tea Party grew through its efforts to push the Republican Party to the right. While they were angry at Obama, they were also angry at their own representatives, many of whom they managed to “get primaried”, i.e. replaced by their own candidates.
The protesters at these Republican town halls aren’t going to impact the party at large because they aren’t Republicans for the most part. Whatever influence they’ll have will be on their own party.
Trump disgusts me, but one major reason for that is because he is such a bull shitter, the last thing I want in a president. I hate B. S., even more so when it comes from sources I respect for the most part.
Journalists: Do your effing job!