COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JONATHAN FREEDLAND IN THE GUARDIAN
"Donald Trump’s treatment of a crying baby reveals his total lack of empathy"
It would be refreshing if even once Jonathan Freedland made an effort to be fair and objective, but I'm pretty sure that is unlikely ever to happen.
His job appears to be to scour the wire services for any trivial point - such as a baby's crying in a speech - on which he can pounce to make his own sweepingly negative point, as here .
It in fact is a practice which borders on the ridiculous if you come upon it expecting to read real fact and analysis or even good argument.
However, it is a practice well known to the arts of propaganda.
The essence of pieces like this is that a highly charged negative headline gets to appear on the main page, serving much to the effect of a billboards along a highway. Many passing readers will glance at the billboards, registering their negative messages.
In a sense, they are not even meant to be read - although they are always competently written by the norms of grammar and creative prose - because they serve merely as anchors for the billboards.
And The Guardian makes sure there are plenty of those billboards with its stable of Freedland-like writers.
Please, is it too much to ever discuss real issues, real events hanging in the balance of this election?
Apparently, it is.
Response to another reader's comment:
Mrs Obama very much did on several occasions.
I recall seeing her a few years back, pacing back and forth in front of a gathering, rather menacingly barking out the fact "She doesn't DO that" about some trivial matter. It was extremely unpleasant.
But the good folks working full time to bring down Trump seem to be completely oblivious to historical facts which point towards someone other than their target.
Just as we had a few years ago Hillary insulting a Gold Star mother from the Benghazi fiasco, publicly calling her a liar. Imagine a public official - which she was at the time - speaking that way about a citizen?