In­con­sis­tency in crit­i­cism of Trump vs. Obama?

The Denver Post - - OPINION -

Re: “At­tacks be­tween MSNBC ‘Morn­ing Joe’ hosts and Pres­i­dent Trump,” July 5 let­ter to the ed­i­tor.

Let­ter-writer Mike Eller wrote: “If Barack Obama had been in­sulted like Trump has been, the party do­ing the in­sult­ing would have been la­beled a racist and worse. The dif­fer­ence is that the me­dia (in­clud­ing The Den­ver Post) would have scorned the party do­ing the in­sult­ing. With Trump, they scorn the pres­i­dent.”

That is sim­ply not true. When Obama was in­sulted for things he ac­tu­ally said or did, the crit­ics were only “la­beled a racist or worse” if the crit­i­cism was framed in racist (or worse) terms. The me­dia did not scorn the peo­ple who in­sulted the way he ac­tu­ally said or did things. And, in fact, they did scorn him for his rel­a­tively rare false state­ments and of­fi­cial mis­steps. On the other hand, they did scorn those who tried to push fake con­tro­ver­sies (such as the “birthers”).

Don­ald Trump, on the other hand, is be­ing in­sulted for what he ac­tu­ally said, how he said it, and what he ac­tu­ally did. He is not in­sulted for his race, as­sumed re­li­gion, or place of birth. There is no dif­fer­ent stan­dard at work, just two dif­fer­ent men with very dif­fer­ent be­hav­ior. Bill Goodrich, En­gle­wood

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.