I watched the State of the Union speech live yesterday. I’d noted earlier that the immediate reaction perfectly reflected media bias. The Guardian
and a large swathe of the MSM called it "divisive". A few others, like the Telegraph
, called it "unifying".
Overall, the media coverage was pretty crap. MSM is majority left-of-centre and Trump-hating, and rather than take a balanced look at the speech — the "facts", we're endlessly assured the media is driven by — they have gone full-on partisan. Full on TDS. Full on petty and petulant.The pettiness is sometimes breathtaking: one of the fact checkers claimed Trump's statement that "one third" of the women in the migrant caravans had been sexually assaulted, was only "partly true". Why? The "real figure" is 31%! Omigod…
Another tried a "gotcha", on Jews' belief in heaven, in a quote Trump attributed to a Dachau survivor, sitting right there in the House. "Jews don't believe in heaven" this paragon of investigative journalism tells us. "Oh yes, we do", shot back many Jews, quoting the Torah. How grossly, how horribly, petty. It's no wonder Trump talks of the "fake media", and he didn't make them like this.
So I read the SOTU transcript.
And what I find is that not only is it unfair to call it "divisive" overall , it's actually difficult to find any parts that are
divisive. Have a read yourself to fact check me. He keeps talking of cooperation and compromise. Of unity. Giving due t his most hostile critics. "Divisive"? Not.
But what about when he called out socialism? Well, socialism should
be called out. It was not too long ago that no one in America would have ended to make the point, but it's become a matter of pride amongst the far left of the Democratic Party, while the great majority of Americans don't support socialism at all. Venezuela hasn't helped here, though the likes of "the Bern", and AOC, are immune to reality of a socialist state crumbling before our eyes.
The mention of border security, is that divisive? Well, the Democrats have repeatedly committed to border security and to talks after the shutdown was over, but have reneged. Who's divisive?
Meantime, the applause lines. Look at what the Democrats did not
They did not applaud lowest unemployment rate in 50 years; or the lowest ever
unemployment for African Americans, for Hispanics, for Asians and for disabled; they didn't applaud a proposed bill to stop sex trafficking; they didn't applaud a bill to lower the cost of prescription drugs; they didn't applaud a bill to wipe out HIV; they didn't applaud prison reform that's already passed into legislation; and they didn't applaud bill to stop infanticide. So what will they applaud??
What did they cheer? Trump's statement that 58% of the new jobs went to women was cheered by a gaggle of white-suited women in the House. This, sadly revealing their high self regard.
I've just seen MSNBC. They called the speech "an angry, racist, xenophobic platform". Huh? Which speech did you watch? Were you somewhere else? Read the transcript.
To repeat for the N-th time, I'm no fan of Trump. But the egregious treatment of his SOTU speech shows just how horribly biased the media is, and how hypocritical they are in claiming the high moral ground: the NYT
ads boasting of their relentless search for "the facts", or the Washington Post
's sanctimonious Super Bowl ad.
Note to media: remove the monster plank in your eye, before demanding the speck be removed from Trump's: quibbling over "31%" vs "one-third", as a part lie.…Heaven help us! (The heaven Jews believe in).
By the way, polls gave the SOTU high marks, around 76% approval. I'm watching with interest how the indefatigable "unbiased" media are going to spin that one.