No More Mister Nice Blog: THE DEFAULT TONE OF MAINSTREAM NEWS IS THE REASON IT'S FAILING US NOW
By: Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Tuesday, February 04, 2025
THE DEFAULT TONE OF MAINSTREAM NEWS IS THE REASON IT'S FAILING US NOW
Last night I was reading a long New York Timesstory, written by Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman, and four other reporters, that attempted to make sense of Elon Musk's government takeover. But instead of portraying what's happening as the constitutional crisis it is, the story mostly just enumerates Musk's acts of aggression, describing them with quiet awe.
Here's the headline:
Inside Musk's Aggressive Incursion Into the Federal Government
The billionaire is creating major upheaval as his team sweeps through agencies, in what has been an extraordinary flexing of power by a private individual.
There's a common tone to most mainstream media reporting about men in expensive suits acting aggressively. When mainstream journalists write about these men, they adopt the awestruck language that became a default during the Reagan years, when hyperaggressive CEOs were portrayed as America's new "rock stars." There was more of this during the rise of the tech industry, whose CEOs sought to "disrupt," to "move fast and break things."
So Swan, Haberman, and their colleagues aren't inclined to describe what they're seeing as bad, or even potentially bad. It's just a power move. What's important is what the aggressors are doing and how aggressively the aggressors are aggressing, not what might actually result from all the aggression.
So we read a recitation of what's happening -- and we're effectively reassured that it's all happening inside the guardrails.
In Elon Musk's first two weeks in government, his lieutenants gained access to closely held financial and data systems, casting aside career officials who warned that they were defying protocols. They moved swiftly to shutter specific programs — and even an entire agency that had come into Mr. Musk's cross hairs. They bombarded federal employees with messages suggesting they were lazy and encouraging them to leave their jobs.
Empowered by President Trump, Mr. Musk is waging a largely unchecked war against the federal bureaucracy — one that has already had far-reaching consequences.
Emphasis added. We're told it's okay for Musk to do what he's doing -- to break laws -- because Trump is president and Trump says it's okay. If the Constitution and the relevant laws were still being enforced, Trump couldn't "empower" Musk this way. But the Times reporters don't tell us that.
The dry recitation of Musk's legally and constitutionally impermissible acts continues:
Mr. Musk's aggressive incursions into at least half a dozen government agencies have challenged congressional authority and potentially breached civil service protections.
Top officials at the Treasury Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development who objected to the actions of his representatives were swiftly pushed aside. And Mr. Musk's efforts to shut down U.S.A.I.D., a key source of foreign assistance, have reverberated around the globe.
Followed by more heavy breathing in response to Musk's aggression:
Mr. Musk, the world's richest man, is sweeping through the federal government as a singular force, creating major upheaval as he looks to put an ideological stamp on the bureaucracy and rid the system of those who he and the president deride as "the deep state."
The rapid moves by Mr. Musk, who has a multitude of financial interests before the government, have represented an extraordinary flexing of power by a private individual.
This is a romance novel, not an account of a constitutional crisis.
It's only in paragraph 15 that we're told -- briefly -- that this might be more than just an unusually fierce power battle:
The historian Douglas Brinkley described Mr. Musk as a "lone ranger" with limitless running room. He noted that the billionaire was operating "beyond scrutiny," saying: "There is not one single entity holding Musk accountable. It's a harbinger of the destruction of our basic institutions."
But be reassured that it's all being done through normal channels.
However, the president has given Mr. Musk vast power over the bureaucracy that regulates his companies and awards them contracts.
Trump can't give Musk all this power -- not legally. Congressional Republicans won't step assert to assert their own prerogatives, so Trump can do it illegally. But we're not told that here.
This is the point where you all pull up that meme of the Kool-Aid pitcher that says, "The media likes Trump and wants him to win," or whatever ther post-election version is. But I don't believe that. I think much of the media would prefer a right-centrist deficit hawk as president (Nikki Haley, Chris Sununu), or a corporatist with relatively liberal social views (Mike Bloomberg). I don't believe the mainstream media wants agents of chaos in the White House. Even the right-leaning Murdoch press has denounced Trump's tariff wars and appointment of Robert Kennedy Jr.
But the traditional language of journalism -- a combination of "just the facts" and fan club press releases for aggressors in the C-suites -- is inadequate for the moment we're in.
Readers of that Times story know what they should be reading right now, and know they're not getting it. Here are some of the comments most recommended by readers:
Why aren't you using the word coup?
****
Musk and his teenage minions have no constitutional authority to do any of this.
All of the media reporting on DOGE's actions as if it has any legitimacy is falling into Trump and Elon's false narrative that any of this is lawful.
****
We did not vote for Musk. He was not confirmed as an appointee. Is what he's doing even legal?
****
Absolutely none of this is legal or constitutional. A private unelected citizen does not have the authority to stop payment on authorized government contracts or shutter a Congressionally-created agency.
Indeed, the President doesn't even have that authority. Those belong strictly to Congress. This is a coup, rubber-stamped by the President, to overthrow the separation of powers in this country.
****
Why is the media just reporting illegal actions as if they're facts?
Instead of "Elon shakes up Washington" how about some context? "Unelected Billionaire Appointed to Run Non-existent Agency Conducts Illegal Actions Across the Federal Government."
****
Please stop sane-washing these actions—it's not an extraordinary flexing of power—it's an illegal takeover of the government!
This is 9/11. It's Pearl Harbor. It's the attack on Fort Sumter. The press should report it that way. But the media says it's just a power struggle that's a bit fiercer than usual. Posted by Steve M. at 11:00 AMNewer PostOlder PostHome Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
The media is useless, almost traitorous.
2015-2020 proved it. But then, you approved of their Trump bashing doing anything, ANYTHING, to keep Trump out of the system completely. But now that they show some favorability toward Trump and where we are headed, they are useless, almost traitorous. SMH
Trump deserves to be bashed. That is something people like you have never understood and that is why this country is fucked. Trump has never ever for one minute been fit to be president of the United States.
In your entire life, the media has always been biased towards Democrats. In the last decade, it's lost all pretence at being objective. That Democrats still complain and demand even shriller coverage is amazing to me.
[✘] The constant need for the status quo of the old days to be the dominant force in our country today instead of change. Funny, I thought that is what progressivism was all about. And no we won't go back to the middle ages. Relax and enjoy life
No you won't go back , you will vote for a mentally ill pathological liar. THAT is why the country is fucked.
As always, opinions will vary.
Who wants to go back to the Middle Ages? Who wants to maintain the status quo? I sure as hell don't.
Yet when a drastic change came in 2017, MANY on the left side of the aisle resisted like hell right down to a woman making thousands knitting pink pussy hats. They were afraid of "he's going to" then, and still are. The world didn't end and actually, evolved into a more stable place. Since January of 2021that all got erased and only now there is a light at the end of the former regime's disastrous tunnel.
First of all trump has no mandate to destroy the American government, or to take over Gaza, or to end all foreign aid, or to leave NATO. The slim majority of voters did not vote for him. There is no such thing as a mandate when you don't even win 50 percent of the vote.
He feels empowered because he is a psychopath and he has a cult following. He wasted millions of gallons of water in northern California because a stupid fuck and mentally ill.
It may take a generation to undo all the damage this psycho is doing to the country.
Opinions do vary
[✘]
Another claim by you with no backup ... just a claim.
One of the main reasons people voted for Trump is to lower consumer prices. Was that a rational move by an informed electorate? Or are you going to claim that Trump will indeed lower consumer prices by some magic? Do you think that Trump's "drill, baby, drill" is going to take a booming oil production and make it even better ... so much better that he will cut energy costs by 50%? Do you believe that Trump's tariffs will not raise prices but will instead fill the coffers of the USA with trillions of dollars to fund his programs (such as deportation)?
You're likely going to take this as an attack, but it isn't. It's an analysis.
No one who doesn't already support your views is going to take you seriously, especially anyone who thinks critically. They have seen your posts for years and, by now, know that anything that doesn't support your views, even things that are on your side of the fence, that aren't sufficiently rabid in their pursuit of your ideology are going to be labeled as traitorous by you.
This article is a case in point. It actually says what you want it to say, even though it is nearly devoid of any facts. This is the sort of media that you personally approve of, in my opinion, based on your post history. Anything that doesn't look like this is useless and traitorous, even though it is simply propaganda. I know it is propaganda because it doesn't back up its claim at all. Not once. It shouts unconstitutionality without spending one line of text explaining how it's unconstitutional. The argument of the entire article is purely emotional.
That's why what you post has no credibility for many here. You post too many seeds that are just like this. The only ones who support it are those who are ruled by their emotions. They don't ask questions like "Okay, but how is it unconstitutional?" They just support it because it is in opposition to something they want to oppose, whether it makes sense or not and that is what you rely on.
Believe it or not I don't care what MAGA clowns think, since many of them are traitors themselves.
That is part of your credibility problem. You dismiss their position simply because it doesn't align with your own. Put another way, you aren't presenting a credible argument here.
People here whose opinion I care about think I have credibility. Trump's existence as a politician is based on racism so why do you support him?
Pretty sure I'm not one of those who's opinion you care about. So, why ask me such a question? Especially when you must know that I view the Dems and the left as the definition of racism.
Is the dissention here any better?
Especially after USAID gave the New York Times and Politico all that money. Then again, they did have all those unnamed sources do hit pieces on Trump officials.
Media, like Politico, receives millions from the federal government. Or did. They did their best to earn their keep shilling for the Democrats. Reality caught up to them.
What bureaucrats are elected? Who do you think runs the executive branch? Unelected bureaucrats. Trump, at least, campaigned on doing exactly this. You lost.
Kudos on using the same talking points every democrat under the sun is using "unelected billionaire" though.
on-existent Agency
It was created by the President. Just like USAID was.
Illegal Action
Nothing Musk has done is illegal.
What bureaucrat had the authority to end US foreign aid
You do know I expect that many legal experts have said that everything Musk is doing is illegal
The President does John. Everything Musk actually does is through the President. Musk isn't actually "doing" anything other than recommending actions for the President to take. Musk is an auditor, Trump issues the actual orders.
Talk about a war on Democracy. Democrats want unelected bureaucrats to have completely control over federal spending and not be responsible to their elected boss.
Well, by all means, let's lock him up.............../S
If what your "experts" say is true, why is Musk still on the streets?
As for illegality, this sums its up nicely:
So you support this use of taxpayer dollars or do you think this money should go elsewhere?
How about the department of education, can you name one metric that has improved since it's creation?
I feel like something is missing!
All Americans have a right to be concerned when an unelected foreign born zealot has access to Americans information and money.
He wasn't elected, he has no loyalty to anyone or anything but his own bank account. Isn't that the definition of the "swamp" invading DC? Not a man of the people but an oligarch acting like a king.
There are no guarantees as to what Musk is doing with our information. No Congressional approval or Senate approval or law has been passed allowing this to happen.
The media has failed us since Bush and every year has gotten worse and worse.
Every day now we see our freedoms taken away from us on the whims of a man who should never been elected with a criminal record in the first place. Add in Musk and it's a recipe for disaster.
It seems illegal. I wish Congress would stand up and do something
Congress is now in Republican hands, thank heaven.
All Musk is, is an advisor. Trump makes the final decisions.
You should give that more thought rather than let articles like this seed influence you. It keeps saying words like "illegal" and "unconstitutional" but doesn't spend even one line explaining how those words legitimately apply. I believe that is because neither of them do. Whatever DOGE is doing, they have no power at all to make any government agency take action of any kind. The leadership within the government does, however and are, in fact, the ones actually effecting the orders everyone is so up in arms about, not the DOGE.
One issue, in my opinion, that fueled the loss for Democrats in November was that a large portion of the population is concerned with what seems like government agencies acting like their own branch of government, making laws and operating without accountability to the legitimately elected branches. What I believe we are seeing now is an effort to curb the excesses of that situation and bring agencies back under control of the elected officials.
If anything illegal is enacted then I'm certain that lawsuits will be tried in courts. Unfortunately, the same applies even if everything is legal, as lawsuits are part of the current lawfare tactic in our system in order to cause as much obstruction as is possible. More unfortunately, what many consider to be the standard of what constitutes Constitutionality in the minds of many is whether or not the ruling aligns with what they want to be true rather than what is actually Constitutional.
My own personal opinion is that I think what the DOGE is doing will be more beneficial than not, as the possibility of the average person getting to see behind the curtain for once is hard to view in any other way. I, for one, am glad of it. The only thing I'm concerned with is whether what we will be shown is true or not. For that, I will certainly not trust the media to tell me. I'll just do my best to make up my own mind by hopefully piecing together the truth by what comes out.
My hope is that more and more people will stop to consider what the DOGE is doing, even if it is politically motivated, as that alone doesn't make it a bad thing. My expectation is that we, the people, will get to see a part of the government we don't usually get to see or, put another way, just what they are doing and how they are doing it. I don't understand how any thinking person could object to that, as the alternative seems to me to be just trust what the media and our favored politicians tell us. No thank you.
foreign born
such xenophobia.
He did immigrate the right way so he can't be supported.
You've had no freedoms taken away.
It's a lot like in a movie where a character comes running in the room to warn his friends of invading bandits but then realizes as he's running into the room shouting "Arm yourselves! The bandits are right behind me!" that the bandits are already in the room and all his friends have already been killed or defeated. That's when he screeches to a halt and suddenly changes his tune "And aren't they nice bandits! The best bandits I've ever seen in fact! Maybe they need foot rubs, any bandits need a foot massage?".
The media is being forced to change its tune because the bandits have taken over and the media companies and their employees are simply trying not to get shot, metaphorically and literally.
Then they're cowards. Can you imagine Walter Cronkite being that cowardly?