Mainstream media reporting says Americans should believe government officials when they make statements about climate change, but disregard what they say about the situation on the U.S. southern border.
As for climate change, media members across the board misrepresented Trump’s response to a question about the report.
He was asked if he’d read it, and he said yes. He then was asked if he believed the conclusion global warming would place a major drag on the economy – if he accepted conclusions, in essence, that were drawn from economic models ladled over climate models – and to that he responded, “I don’t believe it.”
Instead, we get leads such as this one from Chris Cillizza of CNN under “Donald Trump buried a climate change report because ‘I don’t believe it’”: “President Donald Trump on Monday dismissed a study produced by his own administration, involving 13 federal agencies and more than 300 leading climate scientists, warning of the potentially catastrophic impact of climate change.”
Cillizza said that Trump moved up the report’s release to last Friday, so Americans consumed with family reunions and Black Friday bargains would not notice it.
“If you missed the study’s release, well, that was the point,” he wrote.
“Because there are VERY few coincidences in politics, the decision to speed up the release of the report to the day after Thanksgiving … rather than, say, [Monday] … was clearly a move by the administration to cover up what they see to be bad news. Or, better put, news that challenges Trump’s fact-free position that all of this talk of global warming and climate change is belied by the … fact that it was cold in the Northeast on the day before Thanksgiving.”
But when it came to the border and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, not a word was believed.
Nielsen released a statement that said, in part, that the “limited number of women and children” in the caravan of migrants moving up from Central America “are being used by organizers as ‘human shields’ when they confront law enforcement. They are being put at risk by the caravan organizers as we saw at the Mexico-Guatemala border. This putting vulnerable people in harm’s way.”
According to the Washington Post in “Kirstjen Nielsen asserts women and children were ‘human shields’ in tear gas attack at border,” by Isaac Stanley-Becker, this was just “the embattled Cabinet secretary” seeking to “fend off criticism of the severe tactics taken Sunday against women and children who appeared in searing photos from the border by suggesting without evidence that they were being used as ‘human shields.’”
No information was provided on how the Post knows Nielsen’s claim, informed by the Department of Homeland Security personnel on the ground, was incorrect.
The American Civil Liberties Union condemned Nielsen in a statement for “running her department as an instrument of President Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda” and the Post considers her “the face of President Trump’s hard-line immigration policy, including his administration’s decision to separate migrant children from their parents” – a practice begun in the George W. Bush administration and expanded under President Obama.
Nielsen “claimed the migrants were ‘predominately male’ after images circulated Sunday on social media showing young children contorting themselves to escape the tear gas” and that an immigration activist considers this “outrageous and wrong on so many levels,” the Post reported.
She blamed Congress for inaction on immigration, as does the president, the Post noted.
The contention Democrats “are responsible for the excesses of his own immigration policy because they don’t get in line with his priorities, including funding on the border wall, misunderstands the separation of powers,” the author declared.
“Nielsen praised Trump for deploying active-duty troops to the border, pointedly denying that the move represented a ‘political stunt.’ The deployment was announced in the lead-up to this month’s midterm election, in which the president made nativism and xenophobia the GOP’s closing argument.”