Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick
I think that the positions of NRO contributors can vary, but even the most pro-Trump sentiment is limited to positions like: the travel ban may not be unconstitutional, but it's still stupid. They are very pro-Ben Sasse, which is an anti-Trump as you can get from the right, conceptually. At the inauguration, most were Trump skeptics, determined to praise or criticize when warranted, and that the criticism makes the case for the validity of any praise and vice versa. But the sense has been that Trump has delivered nothing from a policy perspective, and that his self inflicted wounds make actually pushing through any elements of a conservative agenda virtually impossible. "But Gorsuch!" isn't enough as he hasn't done anything on the SC yet and could turn out to be a Souter. And if Obama is thought so little of, "But Obama!" is not the minimum standard by which a Republican president should be judged. I think NRO qualifies generally as "anti-Trump".
On the other hand, there is a strong sense that the MSM does have a liberal bias. That is nothing new, and it doesn't keep Republicans from being elected, but the rage over Bush and Romney was turned up to 10, so now some in the media's heads are exploding and that the coverage by mainstream press is over the edge. The same people who were "meh" over the James Rosen story freak out about Trump's attacks on the media. WaPo has had to walk back outlandish claims in several stories. Too many to count really, but see Comey asking for funding right before he got fired, Rosenstein's supposed resignation, and the State Dept. mass walk out (when their resignations were accepted). Or the story today about the Saudi/UAE donations to Ivanka's charity, which turned out the be the World Bank. Many people now inherently mistrust the media (though more people still trust them than Trump), but it is in some ways, why we have Trump now. It's not to say Trump doesn't suck, because he indisputably does, but there's no need to lie or play into his "fake news" hand by putting out a story that is walked back later that day.
I think that is the manner in which they are anti-anti-Trump. You can report against Trump honestly. There is no need to exaggerate claims in order to do so.
The NRO is against fake news on uniformly against Hannity's thoroughly offensive and disgusting campaign regarding Seth Rich.
|
I just went to the NRO front page and opened up something that looked stupid and, lo and behold, it was even stupider than imagined:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nation...pring-webathon There is some looney stuff there.
Looks, that doesn't mean I won't go back and read the Eliot Abrams piece, because he has some interesting things to say.
As to "MSM" bias: the media is all over the place, and how Fox "News" is viewed as non-mainstream is beyond me, and there is no more biases bunch of hacks. Some are open about biases, some arean't. But my view on the constant "the media is out to get us" whining from the right is: Raspberries.
Actually, I expect a number of Fox news personalities to become much more interesting once they are freed from the editorial requirements of Fox (e.g., endless kissing of the old white male asses of Republican leadership). It happened to Greta, it'll probably happen to Megan.
