Quick hit: far-right media

Through Tuesday I'm visiting family in southwest Missouri, with posting taking the backseat. I did pause from sociability just long enough just now, however, to leave a comment on a far-right website which lands in my inbox each morning. I tend to scan its opening and concluding paragraphs in my reconnaisance missions. Some of the former are more appalling than others, which in turn invite what I hope are reader-noticeable retaliatory attacks. This morning came one such abomination, and one such assault. Later, I thought why not? Post it.

***

"The media is untrustworthy."

Your words. Well done and thank you for re-demonstrating its thriving truth throughout deliberately dishonest far-rights rags like this one. To "prove" that a likely voters majority is now in Trump's job-approval plus column you cite only a right-wing poll, Rasmussen. Every independent poll has him in negative territory; highly respected Quinnipiac, for example, has Trump 16 points down in job approval. An honest, trustworthy site would include those results.

Other than saying it was "stupid" and so you'll exclude it, factual, verifiable-thus-trustworthy media coverage of Trump's $134 million, US military-exploiting birthday bash included attendance, 10,000; predicted attendance, 250,000. The nearly universally peaceful protests, on the other hand, drew throngs of Americans: headcount, five million+.

Facts aren't "stupid." Facts are facts. The intentional dishonesty and sheer mendacity of modern America's far-right sites are straight out of Goebbels' playbook.

I'm tempted to say they're laughably bad, but there was nothing funny about Hitler's propaganda machine, which Adolf and Joe also called "trusted news." Who believed it? Who trusted it? Their fellow fascists — and morons. Your readers would do well, then, to ask themselves: So which one am I?