Is media too hard on Trump?
Re Maybe Trump doesn’t deserve all the blame levelled at him, Walkom, Oct 31
Mr. Walkom ought to express what he truly believes by excluding the words “maybe” and “all” from his article. Readers should not be left wondering if the writer approves of Mr. Trump as a leader or if he does not. After all, freedom of speech and of belief are guaranteed by our laws and conventions.
He is an influential and well-informed journalist. He should not feign objectivity. Romain Pitt, Toronto I agree with Thomas Walkom that Donald Trump is not anti-Semitic. Despite that, he needs to understand why so many prominent anti-Semites support him. If he can understand this apparent paradox, it might help him improve his message.
Mr. Walkom also says “that nothing he does on any front is able to satisfy his critics.” I have one suggestion that might satisfy some of Trump’s critics: use a teleprompter more often. Bruce Couchman, Ottawa Thomas Walkom tells us that while Donald Trump isn’t a model of conventional presidential decorum, some of the criticism levelled at him in the media does go overboard. He doesn’t have to look far for examples.
In the same issue, columnist Vinay Menon labels Trump an idiot unfit for the presidency for having problems with an umbrella. We are asked to ignore that fact that Trump has survived in the development industry, became a successful reality TV host, defeated 16 Republicans for the candidacy, beat Hillary Clinton, passed a massive tax cut, renegotiated NAFTA and is rumoured to be close to a trade deal with China.
But the umbrella thing is the biggie. Pav Penna, Georgetown Maybe the reason Trump is such an astute and successful politician is because the Republicans own the the House and the Senate, and Trump gives them exactly what they want. Heck, even a useless idiot like me could be a “great” president. I suspect that Trump is not a virulent anti-semite, but rather Jewish Americans have become collateral damage in his war against Democrats, Mexicans, Muslims, the media, Obama, Hillary, Rosie O’Donnell, the European Union, Justin Trudeau and the Canadian economy. Have I forgotten anybody? Glenn Taylor, Innisfil, Ont. Bravo, Thomas Walkom, for having described President Trump to a T — could not have said it any better.
A person like President Trump just loves all the publicity. He is the most popular president or person in the world right now. The media TV, as well as journalists, are making this happen.
The way I see it is the president was elected by the American people in a democratic system. If you do not approve of the person elected, don’t vote for them next time around. But do not report the same story over and over, 24/7. You are adding fuel to the fire..
We are already seeing this kind of American journalistic reporting from our own journalists in Canada. Already, the very next day after the election, journalists were comparing Premier Ford to President Trump. Stick to the actual story material and leave comparisons out. When I see this, I don’t bother reading the rest of the article. If Premier Ford does not succeed with his government, we can always vote him out. Colette Rayakovich, Wasaga Beach I feel an obligation to make comments on Thomas Walkom’s article.
He begins by citing a recent New York Times article which, in his view, echoed a theme throughout much of the media that “confirmed for many, the belief that Trump’s divisive rhetoric represents a danger to liberal democracy.” Next, he apparently presents criticism for this belief by suggesting that the “evidence for this is unclear.”
His first mentioned criteria for determining whether, and to what extent, there is indeed any such evidence is basically a simple count comparison of the number of hate crime incidents for the years 2001, 2014 and 2017 (based on FBI and Anti-Defamation League statistics). He concludes by saying that no conclusions may be drawn from these statistics.
With all due respect, I believe that he has missed the point.
First, for me at least, it is not the quantity of hateful crimes that is significant. It is the nature or quality.
Second, when the contemporaneous words of the perpetrator of the crime echo a resemblance to the intemperate public comments of the leader of the nation, is that not in itself sufficient causal connection to justify an unacceptable level of unease amongst the general population, particularly among minority persons and groups? Is this not made even more chilling, when the leader of the nation fails to call out this bigotry, in no uncertain terms?
Another criterion used by Mr. Walkom is that the president is not likely anti-Semitic, nor does he encourage anti-Semitism. Frankly, I would tend to agree, but only superficially. He is no more capable of being anti-Semitic than a loose cannon.
However, from this issue and many others, there is no uncertainty in my mind that he is simply incapable of appreciating that his words (or conspicuous lack of words) have consequences.
All of which brings me to the very last paragraph in Mr. Walkom’s article. He states that “in spite of obvious faults, he has shown himself to be an astute politician,” and that one should not be too quick to dismiss him. Again, with all due respect, allow me to say that I was born and educated in Canada, and during what now is over 80 years, I was taught to believe that the foremost virtue of an “astute politician” was his/her ability to govern wisely, not necessarily his ability to “get elected.” Sidney Silverman, Toronto