[flagged]
Then why not 60 Minutes? That is the traditional interview one does ahead of an election. He had tried before, and walked out in disgust when given even the slightest fact check. It would seem the only critical interviews he can finish are those he's too stupid to realize are making him look bad ("I don't want testing").
For one thing, Trump will talk to 60 Minutes when it suits him, I suspect. There is no journalist who has criticised him who he hasn't called terrible names and then spoken to again -- it's a pattern. He invites his critics back in. And they will always come back.
He hasn't locked out 60 Minutes the way that simply refusing to talk to journalists, or booting them out of the room, does. The way he responded to 60 Minutes was responding to the media. He responded in the media. He levelled accusations, they responded to his accusations. On his terms.
Like a violin.
And then when he does a 60 Minutes interview again -- which he will -- he will humiliate them for coming back, at least once, in that interview.
I am not saying this as a fan of the man; I believe all his other talents to be malevolent. But I am saying he is unbelievably, astonishingly good at what he does to the media for his benefit.
To. Not with. Not for. To.
For example, he rails against leaks but he is the biggest leaker. He rails against anonymous sources but he speaks off the record through proxies all the time. It's dark arts genius.
"Don't speak to journalists" is comically inept on the Trump scale. Anyone who thinks they are comparable strategies is not paying attention.
If it's dark genius then why doesn't it work for folks like Eric Adams or even other MAGA candidates?
My guess is he's actually lowered the bar of expectations so low that it cannot get any lower, it's on the floor. And folks inclined to circle the party wagons are willing to overlook at lot, something they would never do for outsider candidates who don't wear their colors or haven't lowered their own bar.
Because they aren't as good at it as he is. He is relentless at this because he has an unquenchable need to be the centre of everything, good or bad. He is a malignant narcissist; he doesn't expend the slightest bit of energy worrying if something is true or false.
I think he's an appalling person. But let's be clear: he has at least one great, unnerving talent where news management is concerned, which is a belligerent commitment to always being talked about.
B. I completely disagree. Trump calls them names, because his base hates these people, and has some just grievances. In the past, such people risked being hung by the mob; name-calling is a far superior alternative and not the end of democracy, as even The Economist implies.
C. There is a difference between fair criticism, impartially given; and a myopic criticism. His fans feel the criticism is unfair; which causes all criticism to be tuned out. That’s a warning sign to the media they’ve overstepped their bounds.
Nobody specifies implied contracts. They are implied.
In the case of the USA, from centuries of understanding that what marked the USA out as different to the European states from which people were dissenting was a commitment that power would answer to truth and constitutional protections to enable that.
(I'm a Brit but this is obvious to me)
> That’s a warning sign to the media they’ve overstepped their bounds.
If this is the way people are now thinking, then they deserve the Rollerball future they are building for themselves.
If you're happy to see this curtailed in the ways you're expressing, I cannot help you understand the downsides.
Or that truth should speak to power.
Brain failing due to hunger