Okay, everyone. I think it’s time to review the current insult “snowflake” (with thanks to Dana Schwartz) —
There is not a single political point a liberal can make on the Internet for which “You triggered, snowflake?” cannot be the comeback. It’s purpose is dismissing liberalism as something effeminate, and also infantile, an outgrowth of the lessons you were taught in kindergarten. “Sharing is caring”? Communism. “Feelings are good”? Facts over feelings. “Everyone is special and unique”? Shut up, snowflake…
Alt-right mouth pieces like Ben Garrison and Tomi Lahren delight in painting liberals as overweight cat ladies, so concerned about the “feewings” of other human beings that they can’t see the cold hard facts. But “special snowflake” is an all-purpose dismissal, as easily applied to Meryl Streep speaking about empathy at the Golden Globes as it is to protesters marching against an unconstitutional Muslim ban…The world is garbage, because only because other people don’t see through the bullshit like you do. If only people could put their feelings aside and look at the cold, hard facts.
Great. So let’s put feelings aside and look at some facts:
A man completely unqualified for office is somehow elected to President.
This is a man with a string of corruption, racism, misogyny, narcissism, and lies dragging after him, like cans attached to the rear bumper of a car after a wedding ceremony.
This is a man not only given to nasty attacks but who spews those nasty attacks so many times a day, it is as if he is being paid to do so.
This is a man whose staff tried to make “alternative facts” a thing.
This is a man who sends troops in to fight because it’s a slow news day. (Actually, to be specific, he does it precisely when the only other news makes him look bad.)
This is a man who destroys the environment as if harboring some long held resentment against the planet.
This is a man who lies as if he has a total detachment from reality and with zero regard for the truth.
This is a man with zero regard for anyone except himself, and someone who has made that clear with action after action after action.
This is a man who endorsed a confirmed pedophile running for political office.
This is a man who got elected President *after* saying that it was A-OK to grab women by the pussy if you were a celebrity.
This is a man who says Nazis can also be “very fine people.”
This is a man who describes African countries as “shithole nations.”
This is a man who calls the news media “the enemy of the American people” and reporters “disgusting” and “scum.”
This is a man who proposed a contest to determine which network — Fox excluded — “is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!”
Under this man’s authority, the Justice Department removed the section headed “need for a free press” from its guidelines.
Under this man’s authority, the State Department deleted the word “democracy” from its mission statement.
Under this man’s authority, the Department of Health and Human Services tried to prevent young, undocumented immigrants from getting abortions.
Under this man’s authority, the White House press secretary–Sarah Huckabee Sanders–lies. This is not a “feeling.” This is a fact.
And yet, people are outraged that Michelle Wolf, in her speech from the White House Correspondent’s Dinner on Saturday night, for being blunt. People–journalists included–are upset that Michelle Wolf was too mean.
“Wolf’s treatment of Sanders was bullying,” Chris Cillizza wrote on CNN’s website yesterday. Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade called the routine “personally offensive.” Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for the New York Times, tweeted that “Unfortunately, I don’t think we advanced the cause of journalism tonight.” His colleague Maggie Haberman tweeted that it was “impressive” that the White House Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, “sat and absorbed intense criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth, instead of walking out.” According to Morning Joe’s Mika Brzezinski, “watching a wife and mother be humiliated on national television for her looks is deplorable.” NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell insisted that Wolf owes Huckabee Sanders an apology.
What did Michelle Wolf do that was so humiliating? She pointed out that Sarah Huckabee Sanders lies. She didn’t say that Africa was full of shithole nations. She didn’t praise Nazis. She didn’t call journalists scum. She didn’t say that she would date her daughter if her daughter wasn’t, um, her daughter. Instead, she just stated facts, easily provable facts. She said that Sanders lies. Which she does. Pretty much every day.
Sanders not only lies, she directly enables the actions of the current president. When this president was accused of sexual harassment and assault by numerous women, Sanders dismissed these women as liars. Which is why Wolf mentioned that Sanders is a white woman who disappoints white women. Because she does. Pretty much every day.
And yet, journalists stood up on behalf of Sanders and her feelings. Perhaps they were upset at Wolf for pointing out another uncomfortable fact? After all, if it hadn’t been for the relentless (free) coverage provided to our president during his campaign, it is exceedingly likely that he would not be in the White House right now.
Wolf correctly observed that: “What no one in this room wants to admit is Trump helped all of you. He couldn’t sell steaks, vodka, water, college, ties or Eric. [But] he has helped you sell your papers, books, and TV. You created this monster, and now you’re profiting off of him.”
This, too, is not a feeling. It is a fact.
A little information from Forbes (not known for pandering to snowflakes):
A new study from the Harvard Kennedy School examined print editions of the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and USA Today, the main newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as CNN’s The Situation Room and Fox’s Special Report.
The report should be required reading for political journalists trying to understand Trump’s victory. The study found that 62% of the coverage of Clinton and 56% of the coverage of Trump was negative in tone. These numbers actually overstate the amount of positive press the candidates received. Most of the “positive” stories here were about new poll numbers. Each one of these horse race stories was “good press” for one candidate and “bad press” for the other.
On top of receiving more positive press than Clinton, Trump received 15% more press coverage overall than Clinton. His policy ideas received more attention than Clinton’s, and Clinton’s scandals received more coverage than Trump’s. The number of stories focused on Clinton’s emails and ongoing investigations peaked in the final two weeks of the campaign.
According to the study’s author, Trump dominated the news because his behavior met the stories’ demands. “The news is not about what’s ordinary or expected,” the study says. “It’s about what’s new and different, better yet when laced with conflict and outrage. Trump delivered that type of material by the cart load.” Trump packaged news into easily digestible and deliciously controversial bites. As a result, his message (“make America great again”) was simply heard more often than Clinton’s (“stronger together”).
Some argue that Hillary Clinton lost because she didn’t adequately reach out to white working class voters. In reality, Clinton “talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly.” But the press didn’t cover it. Her remarkably progressive middle class agenda was ignored for months.
And from The Washington Post:
By the end of the campaign, Donald Trump had been the beneficiary of the equivalent of some $5 billion in free advertising, according to the media tracking firm mediaQuant. Some of that was a function of the live coverage of Trump’s rallies, which often ran without interruption on cable news, particularly in the early days of the campaign.
But much of that free coverage was also a function of online coverage, often driven by his tweets. In May 2016, as the Street notes, Trump generated nearly $200 million in free media attention — largely thanks to his weird tweet about taco bowls…
Nearly 70,000 sentences were written about Clinton’s emails. In contrast, fewer than 50,000 sentences were written about Trump’s various scandals. About twice as much attention was paid to Clinton’s emails in total than to Trump’s scandals…Clinton’s emails earned three times as much nightly news coverage as policy issues from the beginning of 2016 to mid-October.
And from the New York Times:
So maybe, just maybe, the journalists clutching their pearls and demanding an apology from Michelle Wolf are actually desperately trying to deflect from the other uncomfortable facts pointed out by Wolf. Maybe, just maybe, they are hoping you’ll get so caught up in the debate over whether Wolf was offensive that you won’t notice that she was right. Maybe, just maybe, they are the snowflakes desperately hoping you will get swept up in the faux outrage and the FEELINGS, as well, desperately hoping you will forget about the FACTS.
Another fact? Flint still doesn’t have clean water.