When Trumpty Dumpty finds out that the Wall Street Journal called his precious stolen election data “bananas” a lot of remote controls will be flying through the air. Maybe he thought he would impress them so much with his 20 bullet points list that they would put it on the front page and send gobs of money to his PAC, crying, “Eureka! We have seen the light! Thank you President Trump for doing the job of reporting that our entire crack staff of award winning journalists could not.” To which Trump would doubtlessly have replied that he had a natural ability for this sort of thing, just like he did with understanding COVID better than the doctors did.
The Journal came to make this “bananas” comment because other media outlets questioned their ethics in publishing Trump’s lies. Here is what they responded.
The progressive parsons of the press are aflutter that we published a letter to the editor Thursday from former President Trump, objecting to our editorial pointing out that he lost Pennsylvania last year by 80,555 votes. We trust our readers to make up their own minds about his statement. And we think it’s news when an ex-President who may run in 2024 wrote what he did, even if (or perhaps especially if) his claims are bananas.
Mr. Trump’s letter is his familiar barrage, with 20 bullet points about alleged irregularities that he says prove “the election was rigged.” It’s difficult to respond to everything, and the asymmetry is part of the former President’s strategy. He tosses off enough unsourced numbers in 30 seconds to keep a fact-checker busy for 30 days. When one claim is refuted, Mr. Trump is back with two more.
To highlight a few, he objects to the way the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rewrote the deadline for mail ballots. We do too. But he insinuates that the presidential results include thousands of tardy votes, and “none of these should have been counted.” They weren’t, per a directive by Justice Samuel Alito. “Those ballots were segregated as the court ordered,” says a spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of State. “They are not included in the vote totals.”
Mr. Trump says that “25,000 ballots were requested from nursing homes at the exact same time.” His citation for this—no kidding—is a Nov. 9 cable-TV hit by Sen. Lindsey Graham. Mr. Trump is alleging 25,000 fake votes in Pennsylvania, based on a stray remark by someone from South Carolina. Breaking news: A politician on TV repeated a rumor. We emailed to follow up, and Mr. Graham’s office tells us this was “an allegation, one of many others,” but it now “can be laid to rest.”
At least Graham didn’t try to defend his ludicrous comment and let it go. The problem with that, and all these comments, is that the damage has been done. Many people heard Graham make the false statement and believed it. His whitewashing it now as merely “an allegation” does nothing positive.
And then they get to the good stuff.
Mr. Trump says Attorney General Bill Barr “ordered U.S. Attorney Bill McSwain to stand down and not investigate” the election. Mr. McSwain claims as much. Yet Mr. Barr, who’s no liberal patsy, has said it’s “false,” and Mr. McSwain is running for Governor. Mr. Barr said Mr. McSwain “told me that he had to do this because he was under pressure from Trump.” We believe Mr. Barr.
This is how it goes for election truthers. First the allegation was ballots marked with Sharpies, then voting machines tied to Venezuela, then more votes than voters. Now Mr. Trump apparently thinks his own Attorney General did an inside job. Electoral fraud does happen: A Pennsylvania man received five years of probation this spring after voting for Mr. Trump on behalf of his dead mother. The price of liberty, as they say, is vigilance. But the evidence doesn’t show anything real that could dent Pennsylvania’s 80,555-vote margin.
Even if it did, Mr. Trump would be two states short of victory. Georgia’s ballots were counted three times and a signature check done. The Arizona audit was a dud. A Michigan inquiry led by a GOP lawmaker ended up keelhauling “willful ignorance” and grifters who use misinformation “to raise money or publicity.” Mr. Trump’s lawyers who made baseless claims have been sued for defamation—twice. They’ve been sanctioned by a federal judge. Does Mr. Trump imagine a conspiracy so deep that practically everybody is in on it?
Yes, Virginia, he does. He was undoubtedly quite miffed when the Journal dared to dispute his Big Lie at all. In his black and white world, Rupert owns the Journal and so they should be doing what Fox News does and backing all his plays, albeit it a trifle upscale.
I sincerely hope that Trump strikes back at them for what he will see as insults in this article. This could be very amusing.
This is Ruppert and Lachlan Murdoch hedging their bets. They let Fox run it’s bullshit in prime time and also in the mornings, and fear (remember, their company is international and always trying to expand it’s insidious reach) being reined in, at least by regulators in other countries. I think it’s possible they are afraid the now-and-then Fox person who speaks with a little sanity about Trump isn’t enough to cover their asses so they use a separate entity, the WSJ in an attempt to maintain “journalistic integrity.”
At the least, they could run a disclaimer at the start and end of that “opinion”, pointing out that it’s all lies.
Um, by “disclaimer at the start and end,” do you mean Trump’s response?
That is NOT going to happen.
Think of it like this: You write a letter to the editor, making all sorts of nonsensical claims. Would you want the editor to preface–and end–your letter with a comment like “This letter is/was full of nonsensical claims”? Even if you manage to convince your local paper to print an full-on opinion piece, would YOU want an editor to take it upon himself (or the entire editorial board to take it on themselves) to put a disclaimer regarding the validity or invalidity of your piece? That’s the WHOLE POINT of an opinion piece: To allow the readers to decide for themselves whether they wish to believe or disbelieve the contents of the piece.
If the Journal had put any sort of disclaimer, it wouldn’t have done any good. Trump’s followers will believe anything that Trump says or writes as absolute, indisputable truth; Trump’s opponents won’t believe a single word Trump says or writes (even if Trump said or wrote, “water is wet,” I, for one, wouldn’t believe it).
By printing the incoherent word salad former guy writes or spews, WSJ is, whether they believe it or not, giving some credence to his nonsense. Respected media outlets do not print things that are not factual without that little disclaimer. All the disclaimer has to be is one stating “this opinion or these views does not reflect the opinions of…”. That would not put the WSJ on one side or the other and no editor would take it upon themselves to claim any validity or otherwise. Since the WSJ decided not to do the responsible thing and put in a disclaimer, one MUST wonder if they agree with former guy. Makes me wonder about the WSJ because former guy did not do shareholders any amount of good and did do much harm to bottom lines. Surely they weren’t so f*cking stupid as to want a 2nd term were they? Makes me rethink the premise that the WSJ has any gravitas, or credibility, whatsoever.
Rich people stick together. That’s why poor folk can’t get past the security guard at the gated community. Any further questions?