It is difficult to take the media establishment seriously in its role as the high priests of press ethics when they are so preoccupied with finding faults with *Document* that they fail to see their own.
‘Iran rhetoric provokes: “Insane and dangerous”’ is the headline in Finansavisen.
According to the newspaper, US President Donald Trump has riled up California with insinuations that Iran could target cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego.
A classic case of TDS
California’s leaders are now condemning Trump after the President, at a Republican campaign rally in Nebraska, used LA and San Diego as examples of what Iran might do if the country develops nuclear weapons,
This is a classic case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), concludes the New York Post in an editorial. Trump did not ask Iran to attack Los Angeles or San Diego.
The New York Post editorial team is, of course, not referring to Finansavisen when they describe this as a case of TDS. They are referring to the Democrats in California and their portrayal of Trump’s statements.
However, we also find the same portrayal in *Finansavisen*, which relays the Democrats’ interpretation without providing readers with the full context.
With a headline and lead like that, it is hardly surprising that the comments section on Finansavisen’s Facebook page is full of Trump-haters with severe TDS. The same applies to ABC News’ Facebook page, which republished Finansavisen’s article.
Inviting Iran to bomb California
California Democrats have hit a new low by claiming that President Donald Trump has invited Iran to bomb Los Angeles and San Diego, writes The Post in its editorial.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, whilst Governor Gavin Newsom wrote:
The President is calling for an attack on over 10 million American citizens in two of the US’s largest cities. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is, in fact, an all too normal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, writes The Post.
And the fact that *Finansavisen* picked up the story is also an all-too-normal case of TDS on the other side of the Atlantic.
Besides, isn’t there anything sensational happening in Norway at the moment? Like the Epstein hearings and yet another national budget being pushed through that will hit the vast majority of people?
This is what Trump actually said during a campaign rally in Nebraska on Monday evening, as analysed by the left-leaning fact-checking organisation FactCheck.org:
You’ll see a massive victory [in Iran], because it validates everything we’ve done. And again, remember that when it comes to the war, it’s all just a sham. It’s a bit high [regarding fuel prices].
It’s a small price to pay to keep the world safe, to keep our country safe. They can take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay, and it’ll all be over very soon.
FactCheck.org’s interpretation of Trump
The New York Post reports that Trump was clumsy in his phrasing and improvised during the speech. However, he in no way asked Iran to attack these cities, nor did he joke about it.
He argued that the temporary rise in petrol prices is a very small price to pay compared with the terrible cost should Iran become a nuclear threat and be able to destroy an American city.
As the conscientious and truth-seeking media organisation that we are, we are not content simply to take the conservative *New York Post* at its word and accept the newspaper’s explanation of Trump’s remarks during an election rally. We check multiple sources.
FactCheck.org has also fact-checked the statement following the fierce criticism, and has examined the full context of Trump’s speech.
FactCheck.org is described as a non-partisan fact-checking organisation and is rated as at least non-partisan, with high ratings for factual reporting. At the same time, they are considered to be quite left-leaning in certain assessments.
FactCheck.org reports that Trump’s statements have drawn fierce criticism from Democrats, who claim that the President urged a foreign power to attack the US.
The fact-checking organisation writes, amongst other things:
However, when viewed in the full context, along with Trump’s many previous statements on this matter and the White House’s subsequent clarification, this is not how we interpret the president’s remarks. Although his wording is confusing, a more likely interpretation is that he meant the war would prevent Iran from posing a threat to American cities, and that higher petrol prices are a small price to pay. He has previously made variations on these points, using similar phrasing.
The fact-checker provides a thorough explanation of why they reached this conclusion, as well as examples of previous rambling and improvised speeches in which he has said similar things.
The stupid American
There is no imagined risk, writes the New York Post. At the height of the conflict, Californians actually had reason to fear that Iran had somehow moved a ship within striking distance of the coast.
Instead of responding to the argument, Newsom chose to make things up, knowing full well that the Democrats and the media are still so Trump-confused that the lie would work.
Don’t debate the argument. Instead, turn it into a smear campaign against the man putting it forward. This, according to the New York Post, is what Americans can expect from the Democrats once they take power after next month’s election.
In Norway, it is not necessarily about who holds power after the election, but rather about a smear campaign driven by severe Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).
The Norwegian media have no right to vote in the US, yet they are employing the same strategy as the Democrats and the US media: smearing a president who has no direct influence on Norwegians’ daily lives.
This endless smear campaign achieves only one thing: it fuels an already intense hatred of Trump in Norway and contributes to growing anti-Americanism.
This is clearly in the comments sections on Facebook.
– It is high time the Americans realised that Trump is completely unfit to be president, writes Dag Arne.
– ‘Alzheimer’s ramblings’, writes Jon Gunnar.
And Petter asks: – ‘What were those who voted for this psychopath thinking?’
The comments sections also show how media coverage creates an image that half of Americans are stupid, incompetent and have no idea what they’re doing, simply because they voted for Donald Trump.
The few who dare to go against the grain are quickly made to know it.
Kjell A. asks whether anyone has actually watched Trump’s speech and considered the context, or whether people are simply going by what the ‘liars in the media’ are reporting.
He explains that Trump meant exactly what both the New York Post and FactCheck.org have concluded. But it’s of little help. The comment is quickly met with laughing emojis and torn to shreds by know-it-alls who blindly trust what the media tells them.
VVP and the high priests
So why should we care what people think Trump did or did not say? Why spend time writing articles to defend the President? Aren’t there more important things in the world?
Yes, of course. But we have plenty of good reasons to investigate what our colleagues in the Norwegian media are up to.
Document is in the midst of a massive storm of criticism from the media establishment, which apparently believes it stands above everyone else and adheres to the Code of Conduct and all press ethics as if the Code were set in stone and they themselves were its high priests.
So when media outlets such as *Finansavisen* republish a TDS story from *Demokratene* without providing readers with the full context, we take on the role of media critics.
And in this role, I have found so many breaches of the Code of Conduct in the Norwegian media that it becomes almost tragicomic to listen to the high priests preaching about Document.
We know where to find you
The biggest surprise in all this, however, is that none of the other media outlets affected by TDS picked up the story.
But perhaps they were too busy digging up the next sensationalist story they can blow out of proportion to smear Hans Rustad and Document
But just carry on. We know where to find you.
Relax, this is no threat. No need to ring the PFU number you have on speed dial and complain about the outrageous article in Document that has offended you.
We know where you hang out: on Facebook, on your websites and in the comments sections. And we’re going to carry on reading, keeping an eye on things and asking questions.
Because it’s hard to take you seriously in your role as the high priests of press ethics when you’re so preoccupied with finding fault with others that you fail to see your own.
