Home / General / All the Non-News That’s Fit To Print

All the Non-News That’s Fit To Print

/
/
/
3298 Views

Finally, a mainstream media outlet has decided to look into the very high likelihood that Donald Trump both accepted a bribe and paid off a beard to cover up an affair and an abortion!

Oh. Yup, that’s now three reporters the Times has invested in the “story” of a rich, tenured law professor whining incessantly because some people at his upper-class vacation spot think less of him because he’s become a professional shill for Donald Trump.

Now, this might even be worth doing if this was an Isaac Chotinier-style give-’em-enough-rope job, but instead this is more of a fawning over than an interview, with Jeremy Peters — yup, the “this affluent white Ron Paul and confederate monument supporter is totally a persuadable swing voter” guy — tossing softballs and failing to ask even the most obvious follow-ups:

You’re no stranger to defending people who are unpopular. Is this actually worse than when you defended O.J. Simpson?

Of course. Or Claus von Bulow or Leona Helmsley or Michael Milken or Mike Tyson. This is much worse than all that, because in those cases people were critical of me, but they were prepared to discuss it. They were prepared to have a dialogue. Here, the people that I’m objecting to want to stop the dialogue. They don’t want to have the conversation. It will upset people at the dinner party or on the porch. This is like safe spaces in colleges.

A remotely competent interviewer, at this point, would bring up the obvious difference between defending an unpopular person as a legal representative in an adversarial legal proceeding and defending an unpopular president as a pundit. He would also interrogate the “safe spaces” buzzword and what it has to do with not particularly wanting to hear some self-regarding asshole blathering on about Donald Trump’s inalienable right to obstruct justice while you’re on vacation. Instead, we get this very telling follow-up:

Your issue on the island is tied into something broader. It’s this belief that one’s personal feelings are paramount. If you are offended, like the people who worked at the restaurant where Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave, that is paramount to her right to eat in that establishment. Is that the world we live in now with Trump as president?

Well, there is is. When it comes to deciding who to associate with, powerful people have “rights,” while less powerful people have mere “feelings.” This perfectly summarizes the worldview of Stephens et al.: “Our job is TO PROVOKE and I’m sick of these whiny college kids with their SAFE SPACES and TRIGGER WARNINGS and also getting an uncivil response in my @ replies is like being sent to the Gulag.”

And this is pretty much the whole interview — Peters asking a question about why the Dersh is right, and the Dersh responding with some word salad of empty buzzwords. It’s like a Chotinier interview, only Peters tied the metaphorical noose around his own neck.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar
Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views :