Hey, Steph – sorry to call you out like this but today you said & something so egregious that it demanded comment. Frankly, this applies to lots of your fellow journalists; they need to listen up, too.
You’re a talented financial journalist, Stephanie. Your bona fides there are top notch. But when you wade into politics, you lose your way.
You say things that betray a troubling lack of perspective. You seem to believe that in politics “both sides do it”. Oy.
In a discussion this morning on your air with Rick Stengel re the implications of Trump’s extortionate actions toward the Ukraine, you stopped Rick mid-sentence to ask: “But, wasn’t Trump elected to let Trump be Trump?” Oy again. Do you not see the inherent problems in that question – hell, do you not see the inherent problems in that way of THINKING?
First of all – it dives right into the false narrative that Trump is the legitimate president who was legitimately voted into office in a free and fair election completely untouched by Russian influences (or the influence of other countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel). It ignores the whole context in which election 2016 took place – a context we now know was steeped in Russian money and propaganda all designed to make Donald Trump president despite what the American People wanted.
The Mueller Report was NOT the uber-document on Trumpian corruption and treason. It’s scope was limited from the get-go – except for the counter-intelligence part of the investigation (which started the whole thing). Even so, the Mueller Report doesn’t say there “was no proof” that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia regarding Wikileaks, it said there was insufficient proof to convict (a different benchmark entirely) but that the investigators could not complete their investigation because of all the Obstruction Of Justice.
The Report suggested that the Congress remove Trump from office via impeachment so that he could be prosecuted for all the crimes he’d clearly committed. Remember all those other criminal matters that got spun off? Some of them are still percolating – the ones, that is, that Bill Barr didn’t squash.
Bill Barr is another apparent blind spot for you, Steph’. You report on activities that CLEARLY indicate profound corruption in every which way. You even speak that word yourself. And yet – each time Barr or anyone else in the Trump White House pushes further into uncharted corrupt waters, your first impulse – even as you point to its outrageousness – is to accept it as the new normal.
Why do you persist in doing that? Oh, right… because both sides do it.
No, love, they don’t.
You pointed out a few minutes later to Rick Stengle that most Americans don’t know everything Rick Stengle knows. You allowed that when Trumps base (with whom you are obsessed) hear Trump get up at the United Nations and lie about how America is burdened by having to pay for the bulk of defending the Ukraine from Russia – they’re gonna think, “Yeah – I agree!”
And then you said this: “How are they supposed to know the truth?”
FFS, Steph – that’s where YOU come in, don’t you get it? That’s where YOU – as the Fourth Estate, charged in the Constitution with being the final check on power – are supposed to step forward SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER]
You however insist on giving Power the Benefit Of The Doubt instead. And therein lies your problem and consequently OUR problem.
Why would you give a liar the benefit of the doubt that he might not be lying this time? Wouldn’t a more skeptical “journalistic” approach be to assume he might be lying – and demand he back up everything he says until he becomes trustworthy?
Would you, Stephanie, a talented financial journalist give the benefit of the doubt to a financial criminal who you see right through? Would it not offend you – knowing the absolute truths you know – to give such a fraud “the benefit of the doubt” you KNOW he does not deserve?
Wouldn’t your time on air be better spent reporting on the evidentiary case against him? What good can come of air time spent framing the story from a lying, corrupt point of view – as if it was valid? That’s what giving the benefit of the doubt does – it validates because it asks “Okay, but what if this utter bullshit were true?”
It’s not true. It was never true and never will be true. It’s like taking flat earthers seriously. But worse.
It is absurd that even as Donald Trump tries to commit the same crime in 2019 and 2020 that he committed in 2015 and 2016, the bulk of our press still doesn’t get it. They see the far flung pieces of Trumpian corruption but refuse to connect the dots.
Please try to grasp this concept, Stephanie (it could, some day, make you as good a political reporter as you are a financial reporter): a crime committed right in your face is still a crime.
Stop giving it the benefit of the doubt. Please?
Thanks,
Signed: A Wanna-Be-Loyal Audience Member