Unfreedom of the Press Page 8
“Now,” BuzzFeed stated, “the two [anonymous law enforcement] sources have told BuzzFeed News that Cohen also told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie—by claiming that negotiations ended months earlier than they actually did—in order to obscure Trump’s involvement. The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office.”24
For an entire day, news outlets and journalists breathlessly repeated the “breaking” BuzzFeed story. Some provided the occasional caveat “if the story is true,” a throwaway line meaning that while they could not or, more likely, would not bother to independently verify the accuracy of the story, they would repeat it anyway. Indeed, the story was not merely blared to the public with repeated headlines and extensive coverage, but the “news” story was imbued with wild speculation about the implications for the president. Again, a conga line of congressional Democrats, former federal prosecutors, and other “experts” were paraded through newsrooms and appeared on telecasts claiming this was the bombshell that would result in President Trump’s impeachment, if not secret and sealed indictment, speculating the president had committed obstruction of justice, etc.25
The Daily Caller reviewed television clippings from the Grabien news service and reported that “personalities on CNN and MSNBC used the words ‘impeach,’ ‘impeachment,’ or ‘impeachable’ 179 times” in less than one day of broadcasts.”26 NewsBusters reported that “[d]espite the fact that the BuzzFeed News story was not confirmed by . . . any news outlet . . . , the [NBC, ABC, and CBS] broadcast networks devoted 27 minutes and 33 seconds on their Friday morning and evening newscasts (minus opening teases)” to the story. Of course, “[a]ll three networks pointed to the questionable veracity of the BuzzFeed piece . . . to some degree,” but they repeated the story nonetheless.27
After several days of this, the special counsel’s office finally issued a statement denying the story. “Buzzfeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.”28
Perhaps as objectional, if not more so, is the drive to smear President Trump as mentally unfit and malignantly unbalanced to hold office, in which his political opponents, helped by a cabal of “mental health experts” and an eager news media, invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as a legal basis and option for removing him from office. This is perhaps the most inflammatory, scurrilous, and pernicious allegation that can be made against a mentally healthy individual, but especially a president of the United States, as the purpose is to destroy his reputation with the public and foreign leaders and make governing as difficult as possible. Consequently, this, too, requires exploration.
For example, on July 3, 2017, NBC News posted uncritically this story: “House Democrats are on a mission to educate the American people about a little-known power of the 25th Amendment—the ousting of the president. . . . Led by freshman Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a group of growing Democratic co-signers has put forth a bill that could force President Donald Trump from office if he were found mentally or physically unfit.” NBC continued: “Although it was introduced in April, the bill has gained steam in the past week as Trump’s tweet storms have grown in ferocity. . . . ‘Given Donald Trump’s continued erratic and baffling behavior, is it any wonder why we need to pursue this legislation?’ ” asked Representative Darren Soto, Democrat of Florida, a cosigner. “The mental and physical health of the leader of the United States and the free world is a matter of great public concern.”29
These Democratic politicians were partly influenced by twenty-seven psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health practitioners who met in March 2017 at what they labeled the “Duty to Warn” conference at Yale University to assess President Trump’s mental health. The meeting was led by Professor Bandy X. Lee, M.D. The “experts” considered two questions: “What’s wrong with him?” and “Does professional responsibility include a duty to warn the public if they believe the president is dangerously unfit for office?”
On October 3, 2017, they released their conclusions in a book titled The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and summarized their position as follows: “There are those who still hold out hope that this president can be prevailed upon to listen to reason and curb his erratic behavior. Our professional experience would suggest otherwise. . . . Collectively with our coauthors, we warn that anyone as mentally unstable as Mr. Trump simply should not be entrusted with the life-and-death powers of the presidency.”30
It is revealing that in the book’s prologue, Lee and Dr. Judith Lewis Herman disclose that “[s]oon after the presidential election of 2016, alarmed by the apparent mental instability of the president-elect, we both separately circulated letters among some of our professional colleagues, expressing our concern.” Thus their quest to alert the world to Donald Trump’s alleged mental instability began immediately after his successful election over Hillary Clinton.
The various essays in the book were written by different authors, each assigned a chapter with titles such as “Unbridled and Extreme Present Hedonism: How the Leader of the Free World Has Proven Time and Again He Is Unfit for Duty”; “Pathological Narcissism and Politics: A Lethal Mix”; “Sociopathy”; “Donald Trump is: (A) Bad, (B) Mad, (C) All of the Above”; “Cognitive Impairment, Dementia, and POTUS”; “A Clinical Case for the Dangerousness of Donald J. Trump”; “Trump Anxiety Disorder: The Trump Effect on the Mental Health of Half the Nation and Special Populations”; “In Relationship with an Abusive President”; “Trump’s Daddy Issues: A Toxic Mix for America”; “Who Goes Trump? Tyranny as a Triumph of Narcissism”; “He’s Got the World in His Hands and His Finger on the Trigger: The Twenty-Fifth Amendment Solution.”31
On January 3, 2018, Lee and congressional Democrats (and one Republican senator) met in secret. Politico reported: “Lawmakers concerned about President Trump’s mental state summoned Yale University psychiatry professor Dr. Bandy X. Lee to Capitol Hill last month for two days of briefings about his recent behavior. In private meetings with more than a dozen members of Congress held on December 5 and 6, Lee briefed lawmakers. . . . Her professional warning to Capitol Hill: ‘He’s going to unravel, and we are seeing the signs.’ ”32
The Democratic party-press was more than happy to use this slander against the president. In addition to Lee sitting for a number of interviews, the “mental illness” mantra was further employed by the press. For example, on January 3, 2018, “NBC anchor Peter Alexander asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders if Americans should be ‘concerned about the president’s mental fitness’ after he tweeted that he has a bigger nuclear ‘button’ than [North Korea’s dictator] Kim has. . . . Anchors and pundits on CNN began questioning Trump’s mental stability, with media reporter Brian Stelter questioning whether the president had descended into ‘madness.’ ”33
Concocting charges of mental illness backed by a relative handful of psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health practitioners would be an extremely dangerous precedent and abuse of the Constitution if used as a basis for invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Apart from the vile allegations of mental unfitness against President Trump, discussed for months in the press, few news outlets bothered to explain, adequately or otherwise, the purpose of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1967, how it works, and how politically complicated and constitutionally impracticable such an endeavor would be even under the right circumstances. Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment states: “Whenever the vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president.” The president has the right to challenge these actions, which, in the end, requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to sustain.34 That was never going to happen. Therefore, the real purpose in this case appears to be to personally humiliate and politically damage President Trump.
President Trump is not the first Republican to be targeted with politically charged claims of mental instability. In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater was the Republican nominee for president, running against President Lyndon Johnson. Goldwater was also a conservative leader and, therefore, considered a political outsider.
In September–October 1964, Fact magazine ran an entire issue on Goldwater’s alleged mental unfitness for the Oval Office. It started with the title, “1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater Is Psychologically Unfit to Be President!—The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater.”
The editor and publisher, Ralph Ginzburg, wrote, in part: “Mr. Goldwater’s illness is not just an emotional maladjustment, or a mild neurosis, or a queerness. As emphatically stated by many of the leading psychiatrists in this country, the pattern of his behavior is ominous. From his sadistic childhood pranks to his cruel practical jokes today, from his nervous breakdowns under pressure in his twenties to his present-day withdrawals and escapes in time of crisis, from his obsessive pre-occupation with firearms in his youth to his present fantasies about brandishing nuclear weapons to scare his enemies, from his conviction that he is surrounded by deadly enemies at home—whether [labor leader Walter] Reuther, [Nelson] Rockefeller, the American Press, or Someone Who Is Out to Kill Him—to his belief that every Russian ballerina is a spy, he shows unmistakable symptoms of paranoia. . . . Clearly, paranoia is not just any mental disease. In a leader who commands the most powerful nation and the most destructive arsenal in history it constitutes nothing short of mortal danger to mankind. A little over 30 years ago a paranoiac with a charismatic effect on his audiences, supported by an extremist, highly patriotic group, was democratically elected to the highest executive position in the government of his country. His name was Adolph Hitler.”35
The magazine explained that it sent a questionnaire to all of the nation’s 12,356 psychiatrists asking, “Do you believe Barry Goldwater is psychologically fit to serve as President of the United States.” “In all, 2,417 psychiatrists responded. Of these, 571 said they did not know enough about Goldwater to answer the question; 657 said they thought Goldwater was psychologically fit; and 1,189 said that he was not. . . .” Fact also solicited comments from psychiatrists and published a “sampling,” which it claimed “constitute the most intensive character analysis ever made of a living human being.”36 Needless to say, the published comments were vicious.
As a result of the Fact article, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) issued what became know as the “Goldwater Rule”: “On occasion, psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”37
Nonetheless, the Goldwater Rule did not stop the psychobabble and public maligning of President Trump by the psychiatrists and others who had gathered at Yale and penned their book. Nor did it deter the Democratic party-press from fully and excitedly exploiting it. In fact, the media have gone even further. Donald Trump’s supporters are even targeted for mental evaluation.
On September 23, 2016, Bobby Azarian, Ph.D., “a cognitive neuroscientist affiliated with George Mason University and a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, BBC Future, Scientific American, Slate, The Huffington Post, Quartz, and others,” wrote in Psychology Today that “[t]he only thing that might be more perplexing than the psychology of Donald Trump is the psychology of his supporters. In their eyes, The Donald can do no wrong. Even Trump himself seems to be astonished by this phenomenon. . . .” Azarian, therefore, will undertake the superhuman task of psychoanalyzing tens of millions of the president’s supporters from his lofty media perch at Psychology Today. “So how exactly are Trump loyalists psychologically or neurologically different from everyone else? What is going on in their brains that makes them so blindly devoted?”38
Azarian argues there are four possibilities:
“1. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Some believe that many of those who support Donald Trump do so because of ignorance—basically they are underinformed or misinformed about the issues at hand. . . .
2. Hypersensitivity to Threat: Science has unequivocally shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening. . . . These brain responses are automatic, and not influenced by logic or reason. . . . Fear keeps [Trump’s] followers energized and focused on safety.
3. Terror Management Theory: [W]hen people are reminded of their own mortality, which happens with fear mongering, they will more strongly defend those who share their worldviews and national or ethnic identity, and act out more aggressively towards those who do not. . . . By constantly emphasizing existential threat, Trump creates a psychological condition that makes the brain respond positively rather than negatively to bigoted statements and divisive rhetoric.
4. High Attention Engagement: . . . Essentially, the loyalty of Trump supporters may in part be explained by America’s addiction with entertainment and reality TV. . . . He keeps us on the edge of our seat, and for that reason, some Trump supporters will forgive anything he says. They are happy as long as they are kept entertained.39”
Azarian assures us that “these explanations do not apply to all Trump supporters. In fact, some are likely intelligent people who know better, but are supporting Trump to be rebellious or to introduce chaos into the system. They may have such distaste for the establishment and Hillary Clinton that their vote for Trump is a symbolic middle finger directed at Washington.”40
Azarian’s disdainful attitude about Trump and his supporters is typical and widespread throughout newsrooms. The Democratic party-press is incurious about and even blind to objective truth and the reality that surrounds them.
On November 11, 2016, shortly after Donald Trump’s election, Will Rahn, CBS News digital political correspondent and the network’s managing director of politics, wrote an extraordinary opinion-piece, “The Unbearable Smugness of the Press,” in which he excoriated the Democratic party-press and fellow journalists. Here is part of what he said:
The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on. This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. . . . Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time. And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. . . .
We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice. This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sex
ist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. . . .
Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. . . .
As a direct result, we get it wrong with greater frequency. Out on the road, we forget to ask the right questions. We can’t even imagine the right question. We go into assignments too certain that what we find will serve to justify our biases. . . .41
Unfortunately, Rahn’s wise counsel to his media colleagues has fallen on deaf ears. Indeed, despite Rahn’s warnings to his media colleagues, since the election the Democratic party-press has unleashed a relentless and hellish campaign of insult and condemnation against President Trump, whom they seek to drive from office, and his supporters, for whom they have open disdain. Aside from certain news media platforms, a few cable programs, newspapers, and conservative talk radio, there is little current ability to counter or balance the large, old-media platforms of the Democratic party-press.
Furthermore, the kinship between journalists and the Democratic Party and progressive ideology debases professional journalistic standards, in which advocacy is treated and presented as news. One striking historical illustration of such behavior is portrayed in the 2012 book Yours in Truth: A Personal Portrait of Ben Bradlee, Legendary Editor of the Washington Post—authored by journalist Jeff Himmelman.42 Of course, the Washington Post is among the most influential news outlets in the country. It was instrumental in President Richard Nixon’s downfall, with the assistance of leaks from the FBI, among others.