I watched the Hearings of the January 6 Committee on Tuesday, July 12 with great amazement and excitement. Wow. There it finally was: The proof of intention.
On the morning of July 13, when I opened the NY Times, I expected there to be a headline saying:
"TRUMP INTENDED TO SEND HIS MOB TO DISRUPT COUNT!"
But I expected that news to be a HUGE BANNER across the width of the page! I did not expect that news to be kicked to the side by a pretty photo of the universe.
Okay, it's not just pretty. It's a beautiful photo. A MAGNIFICENT photo. But its publication makes absolutely no difference to our political life. Let's face it, the universe has been around for a long time, and will continue to do so.
Despite that boring fact, the editors in their wisdom gave this photo four times the space of the revelation that there was absolute proof that the former President of the United States had committed treason.
FOUR TIMES! I would not be upset if the headline shared space EQUALLY with such a gorgeous photo...
Of course we've known forever that Trump did everything he could to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. But the legal nitpickers have been telling us forever that there was no proof that he INTENDED to do that. And specifically, there was no proof that Trump INTENDED to disrupt Congress counting the electoral college votes, the last legal step before Inauguration. And without proof of INTENTION, it would be very difficult to put Trump in jail.
The July 12 hearing finally delivered the absolute proof that Trump intended INTENDED INTENDED to send a violent mob to the Capitol to prevent Congress from counting the electoral college votes on January 6.
And since July 12, there have been no op-eds on that day's hearing, and only three letters to the Editor on that subject. It's as if the NY Times wants us to forget the hearing ever happened. It makes me wonder if, in some way, the NYT is on the side of Trump. That the editors WANT Monster Toddler to continue to be a force in politics because his outrages sell more newspapers.
Indeed, I have no deep faith in the NYT. I will not forget its support for the Bush administration's ludicrous build-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Not every daily paper toed the Administration's line. The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times maintained some objectivity. But not "The Paper of Record," the Grande Dame of journalism. They confessed their sins when it was conveniently too late. Here's a quote from their own article about their misdeeds:
May 26, 2004: "Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.
On Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001, for example, Page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. These accounts have never been independently verified."
Dear Bloggelinis: I actually wrote this blog on July 13, but then didn't send it. I do that often. But I'm sending it now, because I do believe trying to figure out how far to trust the media is an important subject. Terry
Lilith Women's Theater | 547 Douglass St., San Francisco, CA 94114