I have to laugh – though it’s a sad, sarcastic sort of laugh – at these so-called “influencers” and even some formerly legitimate news outlets that keep on pushing with their presumptive headlines full of adjectives and loaded verbs.
Here are some pathetic examples: “Trump humiliated by latest poll”; “Latest incident spells death knell for regime”; “Ex-ally points to worst Trump blunder ever”; “Furious Trump is considering [insert crazy action].” That word “humiliated” – either as a verb or an adjective – is a favorite of sites like the leftist Daily Beast. It’s getting old. How do they know the president was humiliated? Is that even part of his emotional makeup?
I also wonder if these outfits have crystal balls or palantirs, or even a stack of tarot cards, that assure them of “impending doom” for this or that politician or political party. I can already tell you Trump is not done yet — not by any means — and neither are his supporters. In fact, I doubt he will leave the White House unless it’s feet first. Otherwise, why would he be outfitting statues and other objects in gold and undertaking renovations to his personal tastes?
I have friends from both ends of that spectrum. Those on the far right will be happy to have Trump remain in office in 2028 and well beyond, passing the office to one of his older kids. “He’s the best president we’ve ever had,” one solemnly intoned, evidently forgetting about Honest Abe – though when asked to justify that remark, she gave me a blank stare. I politely asked her to follow the president on TruthSocial, so she could keep abreast of his late-night tweets – or are those called “truths”? When he posts in the middle of the night, is he “truthing”? Then on the left side of the chasm are friends who predict that any day now, he’ll be ousted or imprisoned, or Mossad will show up for him. I’ve offered to bet them on their predictions; so far, I’ve had no takers.
But back to these writers, if they can be labeled such. Why do they resort to the same type of superlatives Trump himself uses – best, worst, greatest, etc.? Such words have no place in pure “news” journalism, although some sports writers in the biz have taken to discussing GOATs ad nauseam. But these are all opinions, and they are too often not presented as such – even in mainstream media. As I’ve said before, I blame Ted Turner for the deterioration of standards. With a 24-hour news cycle, when the talking heads ran out of fresh news to report, they began voicing their opinions on it: “Well, Sally, I really think that guy belongs in prison, don’t you?” “Oh, yes, John, and that outfit he was wearing in court was pathetic. Green definitely isn’t his color!”
The least they could do is look directly at the camera and say, “What I’m about to say is my opinion and mine alone. It is not necessarily shared by the news director, my fellow anchors, the folks in the field, the station owner, or the network and its executives.” Some of us are old enough to remember Howard K. Smith and Harry Reasoner, who used to take three minutes apiece at the end of every broadcast to express an opinion on an issue, with equal time given to the pro and the con. Whether they agreed with what they were saying was immaterial; they were giving viewers a bit of meat to chew on, so they could “decide for themselves.”
But that was before The Gipper took an ax to the Fairness Doctrine. Since most Americans seem unable to discern fact from fiction, they merely accept the truth as whatever they want it to be; it doesn’t occur to them their viewpoint might be wrong. They’ve “done their research,” after all, which a few years ago might have meant trolling a couple of like-minded websites, but today means googling and letting the fingers of AI do the walking and talking. And AI isn’t as bright as some think it is. It doesn’t know much about J.R.R. Tolkien, anyway, nor any of us regular folks.
I’ve rolled my eyes so much in recent years that I wonder if that’s not what is troubling my left eye. As I write, it’s Thursday, and I’m supposed to be having some sort of “procedure” Friday. A couple of Fridays ago, I noticed an explosion of vitreous floaters in my left eye, along with a sort of gray background “sheet.” We had to go to Norman the next day, though, so when we finished our business there, Chris took me to the emergency room in Oklahoma City. There I was told I had a “posterior vitreous detachment.” But they called me Monday and told me it was more serious than they thought; I had a hemorrhage, and a cyst in the back of my eye, and something called “central retinal vein occlusion.” Since I’m diabetic and have high blood pressure (this will surprise no one), the condition, if ignored, could lead to “the loss of vision in your left eye.” I’m tempted to think they’re just trying to milk my Medicare and TriCare for all they’re worth, because I can still see – sort of.
This is what cynicism will do to you. You’ve heard of the “glass half-full, glass half-empty” analogy? Well, I’m the suspicious one who says, “This looks like p-ss.” This is what happens when you get tired of people in general, after years of putting up with their howling. And being unpeopley, I could never be a successful salesperson. My son, whose degree is in anthropology, is one of those types. He didn’t get it from Chris or me, but rather from his maternal grandmother; neither of them have ever known a stranger.
I’m trying to maintain a better attitude, at least until I have that procedure. I’m not sure how much good a half-blind editor can do, but I kind of find the idea of wearing an eye patch appealing.
Kim Poindexter is executive editor of the Tahlequah (Okla.) Daily Press and a regional editor for CNHI Oklahoma.