Tag Archive: WhatAboutism


CNN’s “lower-third” chyrons have rendered the Democratic National Committee … redundant.

Nielsen’s third-place out of the top three cable news networks CNN can’t resist mudslinging against Donald Trump with the most incendiary words this side of Pravda. 

“Angry”

“Mistakes”

“Melts Down”

“Ignored”

“Propaganda Session”

During Trump’s spirited defense of his administration’s record on the response to the Corona Virus Monday, CNN quickly flashed chyrons to undercut the words of the President of the United States of America.

Has CNN replaced the thoughtful journalism it used to practice with unvarnished propaganda of its own … against in its view a loathed, despised and hated president?

The answer is obvious.

CNN in its desperate attempts to improve upon its perpetual third-place Nielsen rating — dropped the straight journalistic tradition of Bernard Shaw — and raised the level of scorched earth partisanship to an art form.

One of the causes for CNN’s ratings nadir is there are no reasons anymore for moderate-to-conservative independents and Republicans to watch the once admired network.

“Press Pandemic”

“The surest way to undermine the credibility of the White House press corps is to behave like the political opposition. Don’t give speeches from the White House briefing room.” — ABC White House correspondent Jonathan Karl on his CNN colleague Jim Acosta, “Front Row At The Trump Show”

“Every question from Acosta is an effort to score political points rather than elicit information. It is a press pandemic that continues to rage without relief.” — George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley

The grandstanding of CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, including “mansplaining” medicine to Dr. Deborah Birx, has drawn scorn for months, if not years, to literally no effect.

The nightly incendiary commentary lineup of CNN’s prime-time lineup of partisan polemics — Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, Jake Tapper — has left CNN’s once-revered news division in the dust. When the choice came down to objectivity vs. partisan politics, CNN has made and compounded its unfortunate decision.

And now attention is being given to the subliminal codes being sent to CNN’s maybe still impressionable audience through the use of exploitative chyrons, electronically generated captions superimposed on television screens. The lack of any semblance of trust in CNN has resulted in today’s careful monitoring of these lower-third devices.

Similar to the mesmerizing stock tickers flowing beneath the talking sell-side analyst heads on market news CNBC, the CNN chyrons compete for the attention of its viewing audience against the news and information being provided by President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and the balance of the White House Corona Virus task force.

Nixon-Agnew speechwriter turned New York Times columnist William Safire (1929-2009), looking down from heaven, never imagined a respectable national network would use the same words of politics to “confound, obscure and occasionally to inspire.” 

Is CNN a “nattering nabob of negativism?”

CNN is basically telling viewers, ‘We know better. We decide what is true and what is false. And to make sure you are not believing the president … and more importantly, you vote against him in November, our chyrons are dog whistles to hopefully influence a still impressionable electorate.’

Almost DailyBrett must ask: Isn’t that the definition of shameless unapologetic partisan media?

CNN mavens and their defenders at university journalism schools will engage in WhatAboutism as in what about the lower-third of Fox News screens? While your at it CNN, what about the MSNBC chyrons?

As mom once told you: “Two wrongs don’t make a right” … let alone three wrongs.

Divided America desperately needs a truly professional all-news network, which is dedicated to ascertaining both sides of a given story. CNN used to hold that distinction, but alas those days are gone..

Is a return to Walter Cronkite objectivity too much to ask?

https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-chyrons-trump-coronavirus-briefing-2020-4

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/jonathan-karl-vs-jim-acosta/?

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/what-about-whataboutism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/03/29/america-loses-trust-in-media-at-the-worst-time/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/not-pretending-to-be-fair-anymore/

Deborah L. Birx, M.D.

“After the United States gobbled up California and half of Mexico, and we (Nazi Germany) were stripped down to nothing, territorial expansion suddenly becomes a crime. It’s been going on for centuries, and it will still go on,” – Hermann Goering at the Nürnberg Trials

The charges at the Nürnberg Trials focused on Nazi Germany’s conspiracy to wage global war, and as a result millions were left dead across devastated Europe, and more than 6 million perished in the Holocaust.

The 1945-1946 Nürnberg judicial proceedings had zero to do with the 19th Century US acquisition of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas following the Mexican War. Goering’s lame attempt at “WhatAboutism?” ultimately failed as a legal tactic.

And while Goering dodged the hangman’s noose via a cyanide tablet, the practice of “WhatAboutism?,” clumsily evading inconvenient subjects with rhetorical deflections, is alive and well in our 21st Century discourse.

If the subject is the #MeToo movement, why do more than a few Democrats say “WhatAbout Donald Trump (e.g., Stormy Daniels)?” and more than a few Republicans chime in with “WhatAbout Bill Clinton (Monica Lewinsky)?” Neither gent is a paragon of virtue. We all know that.

Isn’t the real subject about sexual harassment/abuse targeting women regardless of the perpetrator’s side of the political divide or profession (i.e., major networks, Hollywood …)?

Shouldn’t we address and endeavor as a civilized society to solve these widespread abuses targeting women? Or should we deflect attention (“What about … ?”) to avoid an uncomfortable subject, and better yet score political points?

Is “WhatAboutism?” the first-and-last recourse of the intellectually vanquished?

Does “WhatAboutism” Say More About The Perpetrator or The Receiver?

“He (Vice President Mike Pence) thinks abortion is murder, which first of all don’t knock it till you try it. And when you do try it, really knock it—you know, you’ve got to get that baby out of there.” – Michelle Wolf at the White House Correspondents Association dinner

“Essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse.” – Merriam-Webster definition of WhatAboutism

Every time, Almost DailyBrett hears a “WhatAboutism?,” a series of stages ensues in this order:

  1. Eyes roll (again); 2. Concludes that a nerve has been hit by the impulsive “WhatAbout?” reaction. 3. Realizes the “WhatAbout?” rejoinder is only intended to deflect attention/change the subject 4. Almost DailyBrett is even more determined than ever to stay on the subject, triggering a second “WhatAbout …?”

You can run Mr. or Ms. “WhatAbout?,” but you can’t hide.

If Hermann Goering can reference the Mexican War, why can’t we raise the “WhatAbout?” question about the Norman Conquest, and maybe even the Romans?

If a decent person with integrity questions Michelle Wolf’s absolutely hilarious abortion/tampon jokes at the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) dinner, does mere dissent instinctively draw a “What About” rejoinder from the defenders of “Oppositional Journalism”?

Hey just think. … Maybe … just maybe … Michelle Wolf’s lame attempt at below-the-belt, bathroom humor (e.g., cruelly directed at White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and others) was totally inappropriate for a black tie dinner of the objective Fourth Estate in Washington, D.C.?.

Instead of deflecting questions about the Wolf’s vile, hate speech with an “WhatAbout?” interrogative, why can’t the responder instead ask whether the WHCA actually vetted the speaker?

Why can’t the receiver of incoming rhetorical arrows actually make a stand, and put up a spirited defense? How about the tried-and-true response from your author’s Sacramento days:

When all else fails: declare victory.  Thinking: (“Yep, we won … And here’s why).

Instead of affixing our rhetorical bayonets and rallying all the ethos, logos and pathos at our disposal, way too many “WhyAboutists” are simply deflecting their responses to some other notorious example (e.g., Mexican War) – many times unrelated —  to return fire.

The “WhatAboutists?” think they are so smug, when in reality they are waving their intellectual white flags.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/whataboutism-what-about-it/2017/08/17/4d05ed36-82b4-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6f53b84cac9f

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-dogs-breakfast-of-a-dinner-1525388174

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/oppositional-journalism/

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: