Bitter hatred is a dangerous emotion: It destroys one’s objectivity and judgment. When journalists become true haters, the results can be cringe-worthy. Presently, there seems to be a hate-induced epidemic sweeping the nation’s journalists — call it “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Infected pundits have been spewing idiotic, unsupported and intemperate opinions, even vulgar outbursts, about Donald Trump. Ironically, this is only helping The Donald.
It’s not hard to spot an infected journalist, as these examples show:
In a recent Fox interview, National Review editor Rich Lowry said that “Carly [Fiorina] cut his [Trump’s] balls off [at the second debate] with the precision of a surgeon and he knows it …” Stunned Fox anchor Megyn Kelly — herself hardly a Trump supporter — cried: “What did you just say? You can’t say that!”
Lowry’s vulgar remark crossed a boundary no journalist should ever cross. Lowry let his emotions rule, unintentionally denigrating the National Review. Is it any wonder Trump has singled out Fox for its over-the-top anti-Trump coverage?
When NBC’s Savannah Guthrie interviewed Trump via telephone, she displayed a CNN poll, showing Trump down 8 points at 24 percent, yet still leading the GOP pack. Trump called Guthrie out for not displaying a just-out NBC poll placing Trump at 29 percent.
Seemingly embarrassed, Guthrie weakly offered that she’d “said” Trump was leading in “all” polls. True, but there’s no innocent explanation for an NBC reporter displaying a CNN poll when there’s a current NBC poll; no, the only explanation is Guthrie didn’t want to show the poll her own company paid for, because it didn’t support her argument that Trump’s lead was waning.
New York Times reporter Jason Horowitz dedicated an entire article to his “analysis” that Trump’s immigration policy was the natural outgrowth of the real estate magnate’s having spent his childhood in Jamaica Estates, a small mostly single family-home neighborhood in eastern Queens. According to Horowitz, the young Donald grew up in a “cloistered atmosphere” that is “largely impenetrable to minorities” under the “colonnaded portico” of the home his developer-father had built.
Lest there be any doubt about the reporter’s feelings about Trump, he concludes with a quote from a Jamaica Estates’ resident: “This whole country will basically implode if Trump is elected.” I realize the editors at the Times have never met a variant of the root-cause theory they didn’t like, but how a reporter could possibly conceive — let alone a major paper’s editors move to print — such an idiotic story is mind-numbing.
Caught up in the journalistic stampede to be the first to find evidence that Trump’s lead is slipping, London Times D.C. Bureau Chief Toby Harnden came across a poll showing Carly Fiorina leading Trump by 4 points in Iowa. His story ran under the headline, “Clown Time is Over as Trump Crumbles,” opened with a lead declaring, “Donald Trump is not going to be the leader of the free world” and concluded: “there’s no doubt the world will be spared a Trump-branded White House …”
But a Public Policy Poll taken after the second debate has Trump leading in Iowa with 24 percent, Ben Carson second at 17 percent and Fiorina third at 13 percent. To say Harnden jumped the gun is too kind. The story was biased and presumptuous; Harnden simply wanted to find evidence to fit his preconceived verdict.
Then there was CBS 60 Minutes interviewer Scott Pelley, who had this exchange with Trump:
Pelley: Millions of people are wondering whether you are serious or whether this is a reality show. … Yesterday you said, if the presidency doesn’t work out, I’ll go back to my business.
Trump: Well that’s true.
Pelley: Do you intend to be president or not?
Trump: Totally. I always like to have a downside …”
What kind of question was that?! Name a presidential candidate who wouldn’t return to his or her previous job after losing a campaign? This absurd exchange is an outgrowth of the media’s adamant refusal to accept their earlier errors predicting first that Trump wouldn’t run for office, then that he would lead the pack for only a few months, before the first votes are cast.
The only thing this exchange proves is that Trump doesn’t need to run, and is running because he’s genuinely concerned about the country. Why else would he be spending millions of his own money and taking two years of his life at age 69 to run an exhausting campaign?
The media’s Trump Derangement Syndrome has contaminated liberal and conservative pundits alike: The New York Times’ Tom Friedman compared Trump to Joe McCarthy, while WSJ’s Brent Stephens compared him to Hugo Chavez. Even the Washington Examiner ran an op-ed comparing Trump to Toronto’s crack-smoking former mayor Rob Ford.
Ironically all this corroborates Trump’s simple message: That the establishment is run by people who don’t have a clue. Fortunately, the American people do, which is why Donald Trump’s pledge to make America great again continues to resonate.
Stephen Meister is a founding partner of Meister Seelig & Fein, a commercial law firm with offices in New York, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
