The New York Times’ executive editor said that his newspaper — and “media powerhouses” across the nation — “do not understand what motivates devoutly religious Americans.”
Dean Baquet sat down Thursday with NPR for an extended interview on the media landscape following Donald Trump’s presidential election win on Nov. 8. Host Terry Gross essentially engaged in an after-action review in terms of what media outlets can learn from the election cycle.
This is part of the Leftist plan which has been in action for several decades at least. People of faith are treated as freaks, deviants, who must be excluded from public life, from good jobs, from the professions.
Ask the NY Times editor when was the last time they hired a believing Christian or Jewish writer? Of course, the answer is that an orthodox believer would never be hired.
I’m not sure some in the media fully comprehend the role of media - nevermind the role of religion in people’s lives.
“I now have two big jobs,” he said. “Big job one is to cover the most compelling and unusual president we have had in my lifetime. Big job two is to really understand and explain the forces in America that led to Americans wanting a change so much that they were willing to select such a different figure for the White House. Those are my two big jobs.”
Obama was the most unusual president we have had in my lifetime. Though Trump also appears quite an unusual president.
I find them both similar in some ways - yet frankly, Trump doesn’t mask his narcissistic tendencies and inflammatory language. Obama tends to incite others to do so in his place.
Luckily, he does say that he knows more needs to be done, and that he understands how dire the situation is when The New York Times has ONE religion correspondent.
They better start getting what the role of religion is fast, otherwise left-leaning independents like myself are going to have nowhere to go and we may just get out of here. Republicans hate welfare and workers’ rights, affordable or free healthcare; Democrats hate Christianity and diverging views on their anti-Christian social policies. Something needs to be done, because both extremes are awful, yet here we are stuck with one of those extremes. The third parties are even more extreme than our two-party trap, so they’re out too.
Just from my observation on how he consistently reacts in exuberant acclaim to those who agree with him; or the backbiting attack he’ll direct to those who criticize him – he seems to hold his views/opinions to a greater value than one should.
But who knows, may be he created this persona for attention and is actually open to constructive criticism. We’ll see since he will be operating under a microscope. One just needs to be objective as possible in what is or is not being reported.
I don’t want to take the thread off topic, but, ahem, as a Republican I think you have been overly influenced by the liberal press in proclaiming what we hate. We most certainly don’t hate any of the things you listed. Rather, we hate what some failed government programs have done to the very people those programs were meant to help. We very much want people to have everything they need. And we believe in workers’ rights so much we believe workers shouldn’t have to join a union and pay union dues in order to get a job. You may want to look outside your own world view and take a look at what Republicans actually believe and actually hate–hint about the latter–it isn’t people.
Republicans don’t hate those things. Republican leadership simply believes that those things need to be handled by community, local govt, county, or state level. Not the federal level.
Republicans believe in subsidiary, which is a Catholic social teaching. Subsidiary says that public services should be handled by the lowest level possible, even if that level is local Churches.
The Democratic leadership (not individual democrats) have tossed Christianity out the window because at the DNC and State Committee levels, they are filled with pro-abortion people and people who are not educated in religion.
Except I’m talking about the folks in academia, the media, K street, and West Hollywood who look down on people who are working class and constantly tout their education or the education of people they like (ie Maddow went to Ivy League and Hannity is a drop-out, Walker is a drop-out ect) and people who don’t agree are somehow stupid.
So no, it really has not been said with a humble spirit. Hence one reason why Clinton lost this election.
Even ordinary democrats will occasionally mention things like: non-educated people vote Republican while educated people vote Democrat; People in certain sections of America are so silly, they vote against their own interests; they are against abortion but will not take care of the baby and so on and so forth.
Even I as a non-American have heard of how unintelligent, backward, uneducated and biggoted conservatives are supposed to be. I might have believed it too (and I know countless Europeans who do!) if I was not aware of the unfairness with which the left-leaning media treats groups it deems arch conservative like the Catholic Church. Were it not for that discovered through their treatment of ‘unprotected’ groups like that in the past decade, I might have bought into the whole nonsense myself.
The subliminal message is that if you are good and intelligent, you must be liberal. In Europe it is even worse: if you are good and intelligent, you must be an atheist, pure and simple. Never said to yoyr face but clear enough that these are the unspoken assumptions so many people operate with especially in academic circles. Pure arrogance.
While Donald Trump scares the heck out of me, the one good thing that I can say came out of the American election is to see some liberals finally wake up to the elitist stench that hovers around their party and its leading voices and friends today.