One of those “new media” guys used his spot in the White House press briefing today to ask a dumb question about the “Clinton body count” video from the 1990s that Donald Trump posted to social media over the weekend.
Leading to my question: why does the legacy media still send reporters and cameras to cover these things?
Trump PR events are nothing more than theater, and not even compelling theater – more “Benny Hill” or a Three Stooges short than “West Wing.”
Another example to buttres my point on this: Trump lashing out last week at an ABC News reporter who asked him in an Oval Office PR event about the $400 million jet he is being gifted by the terrorist-sponsoring royal family of Qatar.
“You’re ABC fake news, right? Only ABC, well, a few of you would. Let me tell you, you should be embarrassed asking that question,” Trump said, predictably.
Why does ABC, or anybody else, for that matter, waste its time and money giving this assclown a hot mic to use to attack them?
How about putting the resources spent on getting video and audio of The Mad King toward investigating the impact of what he’s doing to the economy and our national security?
I can guarantee you this: a week of nobody outside the “new media” showing up for the pressers would tone the nonsense down.
Trump lives for the spotlight, and as much as his people have convinced themselves that they could be OK with just the Russia-backed influencers carrying their water for them, Trump himself thinks he isn’t anything without having his name splashed on the front page of The New York Times and leading off the 6:30 p.m. ET evening news.
What I’m saying is, a full-fledged media boycott of the Trump theater is in order.
Cut him off for a week, and see what happens.
My sense is, he would come in line.
In the meantime, replace the segments and stories that you would have devoted to covering Trump’s latest rants to covering the boycott, and giving oxygen to the real news coming out of the Trump autocracy.
They won’t do that, of course – the herd mentality is strong.
Which is to their, and our mutual, detriment.
Share
Chris Graham
