Objective controversy

The nasty guy has ranted many times against CNN news. Sarah Kendzior, who has studied authoritarian regimes, tweeted an explanation of those rants:

He does this to give the appearance of universally acrimonious relationships with cable media, which is false, but makes his crony outlets seem more "objective". FOX is a Trump admin megaphone; CNN hires his campaign team as commentators. This is more effective than state TV.

In reply Twitter user Parrhizzia had a few things to add:

This. CNN’s goal is balance, not truth. “Both sides” given equal time and equal weight. That was seen clearly this weekend in regard the climate change report. This is EXTREMELY dangerous as it gives cover for the Republicans as they rapidly become more radical

But they go further; by the MSM presenting them as a valid or rational party, by false equivalences between massive disparities, by presenting their most moderate members as the mainstream, they’ve allow for further unchecked Republican radicalization.
...
Trump is not a black swan. He is not an alien from space. He is the natural and obvious next step of the tactics and radicalization of the Republican Party, which has accelerated from Nixon, Oliver North, Atwater, Stone, Gingrich, Rove, Palin to now Bannon and Trump.

This radicalization is a greater threat to the US than “radical Islamic terrorism”. Unless the Republican collapse can be arrested, unless they can return to being the party of Eisenhower, I worry that the next step AFTER Trump will be truly terrifying. The media MUST step up.

Melissa McEwan of Shakesville also has a complaint about the mainstream media, explained in a Twitter thread:

"Controversial" is a word that has long been used by press to cover all manner of sins — and to maintain an illusion of objectivity by not taking a side on the "controversy," as though not condemning abuse is a neutral position. But its current service to bothsideserism is gross.

Donald Trump and the various members of his vile administration are not "controversial figures." His policies of malice are not "controversial." People in power who perpetrate abuse and the people who object to it and/or are harmed by it are not two sides of a "controversy."

And I want to emphasize, again, that using "controversy" (or "debate," or variations thereof) to affect neutrality is bullshit. There is no neutral in Trump's vast abuses. There is only condemning and resisting it, or abetting it, either actively or passively.

It takes some hefty denial to manage to convince oneself that weasel words like "controversy" are somehow superior to the complicity of silence.