The New Pravda?

        If there’s a more blatant liar on the planet than Adriana Cohen, I have yet to notice. The gist of her Sunday op-ed is that “It’s time for the White House to launch its own media outlet.” Her justification for this (other than what is probably her desire to be an employee of such a sham operation)  is that, “Never in the history of America has any president been subjected to such an onslaught of “fake News”, biased reporting, and unfounded conspiracy theories, spread by corrupt and so-called journalists….etc.”  

        Where to start? Let’s first deal with Ms. Cohen’s starting point. She only actually cites two specific instances of what she calls “Fake News” amidst the 10,796 (and counting) lies and/or misleading statements told and documented by her President. The first revolves around what she characterizes as “the Russia Hoax.”  I would agree that there was such an animal, but not as she labels it. She rants a bit and then finishes with: “…later debunked by the special counsel investigation, which found no such conspiracy took place.”  But wait, that’s not what the special counsel found at all. It is, instead a “Fake News version by MS Cohen and the Cheeto in chief. In Cohen world, a refusal to criminally prosecute is the same as a “not guilty” verdict minus a trial.

       So, what did the SP report actually say, minus the “Cohen spin.” Here’s the precise verbiage: "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime…” (because?). “A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view – that too is prohibited."

        Translated: There is no evidence for a “not guilty” opinion (counter to Ms. Cohen’s assertion). “We rejected ‘not guilty’ because we didn’t think he was “not guilty”.  “We didn’t judge “guilty” because charging the POTUS with a federal crime while in office is illegal and would make no difference.” Taken as it is written, however it becomes plain that, far from “debunked”, the conclusion is “If he was not guilty, we’d have said so. We didn’t, but we couldn’t charge him so…!”

       Clearly, the Fake News here is Ms. Cohen’s allegation that the Mueller commission exonerated the President. It did not. It said, in essence, “We don’t think he’s innocent, but we can’t charge him anyway.” Period.

        The second, and only other example is her citation of a statement by Lawrence O’Donnell which alleged that a check issued for a loan to the Trump organization by Deutsche Bank had been cosigned by Russians. Proven to be unverified (not false, mind you, just unvetted), Mr. O’Donnell promptly retracted the statement in its entirety the next day. He said, “I was wrong.”  These are words Donald Trump is incapable of saying in that order, preferring instead the “sharpie redraw” method of making a lie seem reasonable.    

All that aside, the complaint that the current POTUS is subject to vilification from various sources, while true in and of itself, begs the issue of “Why?” It also, as put by Ms. Cohen, in yet one more Fake News (ish) statement implies that No other President has ever been subjected to such abuse. History reveals the lie.

And it all began in 1800!

        “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”    Thomas Jefferson

        During the campaign of 1800, John Adam’s press supporters made statements re: Jefferson, attacking Jefferson’s racial heritage, accusing him of being “the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father” as well as an atheist and libertine. This was in addition to outing his relationship with Sally Hemmings, a woman of color.

`
       Jefferson’s “pet newspaper”, and a paid newshound/hatchet man named James Callendar retaliated, accusing President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." There were also allegations that Adams wanted to marry a son into European royalty, and, some said, instigate war with France.

        Political “spin” has become a staple of modern life, and we have Theodore Roosevelt, as much or more than anyone pre-Trump to thank for it. TR understood he could use the power of the press, as well as his larger than life persona to engage with Americans via media (print journalism at that time) in a way that Presidents before him hadn’t. He organized well publicized publicity stunts, even diving in a submarine, the USS Plunger (SS-2) to show his support for the Navy in general and this new warship in particular. He toured the country promoting legislation, upgraded the White House’s pressroom and used it for informal news conferences, and hired government press officers.

        After the publication of Upton Sinclair’s sensational Meat Industry expose, The Jungle. TR exploited publicity surrounding the book to help his plans to push the Pure Food and Drug Bill through Congress. While later, he described Sinclair and other journalists like him as little more than “muckrakers,” Roosevelt used the press to his advantage, giving reporters information on Sunday and then basing his decisions on how the public reacted to the Monday papers. (sound familiar?)  Lincoln Steffens maintained that congressmen went along with Roosevelt because he was “the leader of public opinion” and they were afraid of facing retribution if they defied him.

        Woodrow Wilson also had his “issues” with the concept of a Free Press. Reserving judgement but examining factual events reveals that during the U.S.’s involvement in World War I, Wilson curtailed freedom of the press via a two-pronged  strategy of censorship and propaganda.

He (Wilson, wanted “authority to exercise censorship over the Press to the extent that that censorship…is absolutely necessary to the public safety.”  Both the Senate and House of Representatives demurred. Thanks to the efforts of three Republican senators, the censorship provisions Wilson wanted were never enacted. Once War was declared war in 1917, Wilson then issued an executive order creating the Committee on Public Information, whose mission was to create propaganda for newspapers and newsreels that was aimed at draftees and the public, and intended to explain the country’s involvement in the war and sway neutrality advocates. Later even establishing its own “newspaper,” the CPI created the image we all know now as “Uncle Sam.” This is very much like what Ms. Cohen urges in her column.

  
      In 1955, ex-President Harry Truman, in a private letter,   wrote, “Presidents and the members of their Cabinets and their staff members have been slandered and misrepresented since George Washington…when the press is friendly to an administration the opposition has been lied about and treated to the excrescence [sic] of paid prostitutes of the mind.” Sounds a bit like Trump again, huh?

        Richard Nixon grasped the potential power of broadcast media after what seemed to be (and many agreed) to be his poor showing in the landmark debate during his campaign against JFK.  His perception of “loss” in their televised 1960 debate, made him acutely aware of media influence. He took office in 1969, determined to control his media coverage. He created the White House Office of Communications and hired a strategist to help him improve his television appearances. That strategist was, unsurprisingly, Roger Ailes. Future Fox News CEO, sexual predator and Trump media whore. However, even Ailes efforts were unable to calm Nixon’s fears that the press wasn’t “against” him. Driven by his long-time paranoia—and the embarrassing revelations of his role in the Watergate scandal—Nixon compiled a list of press “enemies” and had them audited, using a supposedly independent federal agency, the IRS as a weapon. His cadre of co-conspirators even mounted a campaign to yank the license of a television station owned by the Washington Post, which broke the Watergate scandal and published parts of the Pentagon Papers (See the film “The Post”).

        Most will recall Bill Clinton’s relationship with the press from candidacy to failed impeachment attempt. He was even cited by the Trump campaign in 2016 in a sort of bizarro world “Well, he did it, so he was worse than our guy.”  Way od discrediting Mrs. Clinton because of her husband’s actions of 15 years earlier.

        This, of course, pales in comparison to the accusations and slander levelled at Barack Obama, who endured attacks, based not as much on policy as race, or place of birth.  Donald Trump was a principal architect and supporter of “birther” allegations, using media to criticize essentially anything Obama did, even criticizing the frequency of his golfing, which seems odd now that Trump has far surpassed Obama’s outings over 8 years in just under three years.

       In summarizing: What Adriana Cohen has written overlooks many factors but one overwhelmingly salient fact. Donald Trump is the author of his relationship with the media.  While many recent Presidents have simply ignored “bad press” or op-ed critics, considering response as beneath the dignity the office should command, he rants endlessly, remaining under informed, and “tweeting” his ignorance. He then becomes indignant and authors personal attacks when a demonstrably false statement is called to public attention. These are self- inflicted injuries.

        A newsman makes what is, in fact, a statement which might be questionable. Trump erupts, and the Far-Right Media trumpet “fake news” even in the face of a retraction. The retraction doesn’t say the story is false (it almost assuredly isn’t) but states. as responsible media should, that having been uncorroborated by the standard the public should require that it should not have been retorted. Trump declares “six new steel plants opening.”  When the truth, that none are, is published, it is Fake News.  

        Maybe in reality Adriana Cohen really just wants to be part of the new White House Media outlet she suggests “we” need. Here’s a suggestion -why not call it Pravda?