The article seems a tad over zealous. They lost me with the first link. I went to a doctored photo of Trump in a Satanic red light touching a glowing globe (white, not red) of the earth in some new public building.
Here is an untouched photo for comparison.
So their nefarious opening:
“For clarification,” the Church of Satan helpfully tweeted, “this is not a Satanic ritual.” So what is it? Something sinister, surely, some species of power Sabbath or midnight summit.
… is based on a lie of their own making.
St. Michael pray for us that we be “delivered from evil”…Amen
This is not news.
The orb touching was his first visit to Saudi Arabia when they gave him a fancy reception, and he didn’t mention human rights abuses that happen in Saudi Arabia.
And people wonder why we no longer trust the Press.
Not much balance in any of this list,
just Trump Derangement Syndrome of full display.
A red hue on the photos was obviously intentional.
Obviously doctored photos being used as a real source for a news story.
And they wonder why no one trusts them.
Please. This is a review of 50 strange moments in the Presidency of Trump.
The orb-handing was widely discussed at the time as odd whatever the lighting.
I imagine that the Atlantic used the red lighting to tie in with the disavowal by the Satanists.
That has nothing to do with dishonesty on the part of the Atlantic by doctoring a photo then making a big deal about the red light they added.
I do trust the press, at least to a degree. However, it is good to know who not to trust, at least on an article by article basis. I could do my own Trump list though, and I would not have to resort to shenanigans, cheap shots, or minutiae. I am one of his biggest detractors here and slanted articles like this just muddy the issues.
It’s not just the color of the photos, it’s the article in total. It’s chock full bits of spin and bias, as are the links. Not a single one of the 50 bullets presented anything positive - that’s not journalism, it’s PR.
It’s a great example of why people lost faith in the media.
Whether one likes him or hates him, I have never found Trump to be an “improbable” President. We have had old, well-fed, white, wealthy, businessmen for Presidents before in our history. He is just another one of those. He’s only “improbable” in the minds of those who were convinced he wasn’t going to win to the point where they denied the reality of his popular appeal.
Maybe it’s because that’s because the improbable moments in this Presidency are not very positive?
I was addressing this part. It occurred in Saudi Arabia as a welcoming ceremony.
Honestly though, is that really fair, to define someone by their worst moments? Even if a person only had a few good highlights, those too deserved to be that which define him. The whole thing is just too editorial, being nothing but a glorified political ad.
Which shows that it is simply an opinion piece, and should be treated as such.
I could write a piece about the highlights of the Obama administration, and if my list was blank, would that be worth much of anything? I know lots of people who agree, and lots who do not.
No one should look at a piece like this as anything but one person (or perhaps many persons) opinions. Which is fine, but not very evidentiary or worthy of discussion. It’s akin to arguing why orange is the tastiest fruit.
Even a competent opinion piece presents a balanced view and turns it their desired direction with argument. When something is completely one sided, it’s just a negative PR piece. Not journalism
It does say it’s an editorial in the introductory paragraphs of the list of articles.
It’s a 2 year examination of The Atlantic’s original editorial on Trump. They endorsed Hillary Clinton at the time.