BloggeRhythms

Having one’s true beliefs confirmed is one of the most pleasing results in life. Those occasions help make one’s efforts and labor worthwhile. And today is surely one of those. 

As written here on Wednesday, immediately following the presidential election, many people inquired as to how and why I was so confident that Trump would prevail. The short answer was that I did continual, significant homework, seeking data, facts and valid information from a wealth of sources, rather than simply reading pap delivered by an undoubtedly biased left-leaning mainstream media. 

One particular outlet targeted here throughout the presidential campaign was the New York Times which pounded its readers, constantly. Bashing, belittling and demeaning Trump. Most times, if not always, the items published stretched, bent or completely altered the truth regarding him. To the extent that what they put in print would have been quite laughable in its outlandishness, had the subject not been so critical to the U.S. and its people.   

And now, today, according to a FoxNews.com headline: "New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly"”

 

According to the text: “The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly. 

“Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s embattled publisher, appealed to Times readers for their continued support. 

“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states.” 

“Sulzbergers letter was released after the paper’s public editor, Liz Spayd, took the paper to task for its election coverage. She pointed out how its polling feature Upshot gave Hillary Clinton an 84 percent chance as voters went to the polls. 

“She compared stories that the paper ran about President-elect Donald Trump and Clinton, where the paper made Clinton look functional and organized and the [sic] Trump discombobulated. 

“Spayd wrote, “Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.” 

“She wrote about another reader who asked that the paper should focus on the electorate instead of “pushing the limited agenda of your editors.” 

“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.” 

By posting readers commentary, the article underscored another basic, yet extremely important factor also mentioned almost always in this writer’s daily entries. One of the truest indicators of public sentiment and belief can be found in reader’s postings, both in volume pro and con, as well as content. 

And one things been consistent regarding the Times throughout. The overwhelming majority of readers are almost always in agreement with articles as written. Which means that either their readership is overwhelmingly biased to the left, or the commentary’s censored to exclude dissension. Because one almost never sees dissent as displayed by Ms Spayd above.    

The concluding statement came from Sulzberger who insisted that the paper covered both candidates fairly and “also sent a note to staffers on Friday reminding the newsroom to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.” 

“But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias,” he said.  

While Sulzberger’s words undoubtedly confirm that now that his paper’s been outed for what it truly is, a leftist propaganda organ, he certainly must acquiesce if he wants to stay in business. Yet, as to heartfelt expectation of unbiased reportage in the future, I simply wouldn’t hold my breath.      

Aside from the Times acquiescence, a far more valid indication of Trump’s potential for significant success came from John Biers @yahoo.com/news, as follows: 

“Donald Trump's shock win of the US presidency sparked a surprising rally on Wall Street this week that some believe could be a prelude to further gains. 

“The response, which sent the Dow Jones Industrial record to all time highs on Thursday and Friday, reflected expectations that pro-business policies and ramped-up public works spending would spur greater economic growth. 

“Traders also shrugged off the worries many talked about prior to the election, including questions about the Republican mogul's temperament and his protectionist trade policies.” 

In typical efforts to leave themselves a crutch: “Analysts said the market's optimistic response was reasonable, but that there are also risks ahead. 

"There's a lot of expectations built into this rally," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Private Bank. But he said that for stocks to go higher, companies will have to show much stronger profit and revenue growth.” 

All the skepticism and hesitation aside, however: “The Dow had its best week in five years, ending Friday at 18,847.66, to take its gain since January above 8 percent. 

“The broader S&P 500, pulled down by energy stocks, was still about 1 percent below its all-time high.” 

And then one of Bill Clinton’s wife’s best buddy’s showed up again on Friday. “[B]illionaire investor Warren Buffett, said that he had backed Democrat Hillary Clinton over Trump because he thought she had better "temperament and judgment." 

“But he also said that he was "100 percent" confident in the US, believing the country would ultimately move beyond the vitriolic campaign.” 

Reader's once again, displayed knowledgeable commentary.   

roadsterred wrote: “A Trump presidency brings real hope and optimism. As a businessman, he has real world experience in dealing with government corruption and cronyism. He will know how to deal with it.” 

Terry added: “Why is this a "shock" or a "surprise"?

Trump's platform was Put America First and Make America Great Again - not make Mexico, China, Canada, Japan or Venezuela great again.

Tell all those protestors to get out of his way so we can start winning for a change.” 

On another subject: Jerome Hudson @breitbart.com writes: “Celebrities took to Twitter Friday and trashed talk show host Oprah Winfrey for saying President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama’s White House meeting gave her “hope.” 

“And, indeed, Winfrey’s positive remarks about Trump were met with outrage among her Hollywood counterparts, including comedians Patton Oswalt and  W. Kamau Bell.”

So here we have a situation where even the vaunted Times has come clean by acknowledging how biased their reportage was and  they’d consequently ignored or underestimated their opposition’s strength. And then, another confirmation of the positive value of Trump’s win derived from surging stock exchange performance. Yet, these leftists in Hollywood react like a kindergarten class whose ice cream’s melted.

And that reaction, which has been mentioned here before, is now worth another look. Because as a practical reality, these are individuals whose entire beings are the creation of others. Authors write their scripts, costume designers determine their attire, directors instruct their every move, agents negotiate their contracts, while household staff and chauffeur's attend to their personal.needs.

Meaning that these vacant intellectual lots have neither the capacity nor need to analyze or even think for themselves. And yet, due to their popularity, they’re treated as idolized role models. Which is very much like taking advice on astrophysics from a chimp.

That's it for today folks.

Adios