Home | About | Donate

The Dangerous Smugness of That Boston Globe “President Trump” Spoof


The Dangerous Smugness of That Boston Globe “President Trump” Spoof

Christian Christensen

A national embarrassment skewered. Journalistic honor restored. Reveling in know-nothingness and jingoism taking a back seat to an ironic, raised eyebrow. That front page made us feel good about ourselves. We are not a nation of idiots. We are more than that.



The most dangerous risk posed by the anti-Trump forces is that we could end up with Cruz, Ryan, or several other GOP operatives who are worse than Trump, in the White House.


Indeed. Just remember, it's all about the money and keeping the 1% happy and all of the nice little clubby arrangements in place. The media has its own celebrity status and pi$$ng ground to protect. Trump--along with any new regime--will determine who's allowed at the feeding trough and of course he's all about revenge. Not that I expect him to win. They'll do anything to stop him--even stooping as low as the Globe...or worse. This looks to be an election for, no, make that the election for the books.


The headline spoof that I would like to see from the Boston Globe:



Well done Christensen.


I can't help wondering if the spoof is actually intended to derail opposition to the TPP by implying that trade wars will erupt if the TPP is rejected...


Uhm, he's called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, he's said he wants to carpet bomb Syria, expand torture, assassinate the families of terrorists, bar Muslims from entering the country, encourages his followers to assault protesters, and wants to force Mexico to pay for building a border wall.

I guess you aren't Muslim or Hispanic if you don't find that kind of stuff scary.


I have a somewhat different take on this.
The fact that a major newspaper is actively attacking a political campaign on its front page and, in effect, working as a change agent in an election without at least the pretense of "neutrality", should disturb everyone. The media in this cycle has looked worse than ever--favoring some candidates to the extreme, and actively working against others to that same extreme.
For anyone tired of having their opinions and minds laundered by third parties representing the interests of power, this is a far more serious concern that just a wrist slap for being snobbish.
But that's just me.


No, it shouldn't. That's what journalism is. The entirely false concept of "neutrality" is a corporate subversion of what journalism is supposed to be. Journalism is not a "neutral" regurgitation of facts, and there is no such thing as neutrality.

The pretense of neutrality is itself manipulative.


Are you another one of these beyond silly conspiracy theorists? Let me guess; it was the jewish lobby, right?


Clinton is not dangerous. Why do you say so? you sound like an extreme right low info person. It is a hysterical, unwarranted statement not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Saying that Trump is less dangerous is beyond asinine; it shows the exact same lack of knowledge and coherent thought exhibited by the extreme right. Ms Clinton has done nothing remotely as horrible as you state. Please take some mood stabilizer meds.


Journalism must be a reflection of society, not a guide. The Boston Globe April fools day highlights a fool. What could be more appropriate?


I sort of deserve this response, but I thought the point was fairly clear.

Here's the thing: as the author points out, people love this because they agree with it. It's a major paper validating their views. And not with journalism, but with hamfisted, over-the-top opinion.

But what if the headline read like this?: "Comrade Sanders declines honorific of Colonel: Nationalizes Nation's Fried Chicken Outlets"

Now if you're actually okay with newspapers manipulating elections this openly, then by all means, say so. Just don't complain when they black out coverage of your favorite candidate.


How do you not know. Take a good look at her record. All of what Mat said is true.


That's the thing: I have.


So, you are telling me that you have taken a good look at her record, yet somehow failed to notice that she is:-

  1. Partly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths,
  2. the destruction of multiple countries who had not attacked us
  3. the suffering and displacement of tens of millions of innocent people.
  4. She not only pledges to continue the policies that caused all this, she has sworn to up the ante and be much more aggressive than before.

There is a lot there. So let us just run with number 1, which apparently you are unaware of, and for the sake of brevity, I will only include basics of the middle east, and not South America:-

She fully supported the sanctions on Iraq, justified using lies, and made no apology for the 1.5 million it killed 500,000 of them children.

She rode the war bandwagon in 2002/2003 (Iraq), at a time when anyone who was taking notice knew it was a pack of lies. Probably a million and a half dead. 4 million refugees. DU. A country reduced to barbarianism. No apology for everything.

She pushed for, and got, Obama to destroy Libya. And anyone who was taking notice should have known that that too was based on a pack of lies. Aother country reduced to barbarianism. No apology for everything.

She supported the overthrow of Syria, supporting yet another dirty dirty pack of lies.

Is there any warmongering put out by GWB that she did not support. Did she ever contradict GWB's or Netanyahoo's lies. Will she change her spots? No, no and no. I dont think so. Just listen to her warmongering lies on Iran. She stands for more of the same and quite possibly worse.


Christensen is engaging in a dangerous false equivalence here. Trump is an unprecedented threat to constitutional government, a pathological liar who promises to act without restraint from the legislative or judicial branches. The shortcomings of the Obama administration, or of American society generally, cannot be compared with the kind of police state Trump would impose. Any journalist who cannot see this is complicit in the rise of an American fascism.


Yes, she is a sociopath, no if's, and's or but's about it. I especially loved when she cackled about destroying Iran in a national interview. I think 'haveyougotscience' should return to building a bigger bomb.


Caught that, did you?

Trump is despicable, but with the media ignoring Sanders as long as they can and obviously feeling free to submit Trump to criticism that they will not and would never give the Bushes and the Clintons, you have to feel that the threat is elsewhere.


I think the point that Matt-Heins was makng, you just made for him. Trump, so far, is all talk, reminiscent of Hightower's line of "all hat and no cattle" but Hillary has already walked that mass murder walk and milked those Iraqi cattle. Even though I don't like Trump's racist talk, reality makes Hillary far more scary to me. And when it come to scary on the GOP-side, I find Cruz to be far worse than The Donald.