If we thought they couldn’t sink any lower, The New York Times’ is the Titanic of fake news embarrassment. They sunk further into the murky depths of slimy yellow journalism by publishing a hate-filled anti-Trump hit piece, full of malicious and outlandish rhetoric. And that’s putting it nicely.
The headline ran, “This is What Happens When a Narcissist Runs a Crisis.” The author begins, “Since the early days of the Trump administration, an impassioned group of mental health professionals have warned the public about the president’s cramped and disordered mind, a darkened attic of fluttering bats.” It goes on….and on…..and on. With rabid absurdity.
I’m literally laughing out loud at how desperate this is. She tries to soften her utterly baseless “assessment” by the caveat, “Their assessments have been controversial. The American Psychiatric Association’s code of ethics expressly forbids its members from diagnosing a public figure from afar.” Okay, but can you also point me to the page in the DSM of any legitimate professional diagnosis including a “darkened attic of fluttering bats” mind?
The writer is, according to her bio, apparently a book critic. Sounds about right, as she seems to be borrowing from the children’s book “The Grinch” by Dr. Seuss with her entirely fictional descriptions worthy only of the same type of writing that made Seuss famous for made-up words and exaggerated characters.
But this isn’t a fanciful novel she’s critiquing. She’s talking about a real, current public health crisis that a real American President is managing and real American people are very concerned and scared.
This is impacting everyone, from health to financial concerns to our daily lives being disrupted. For The New York Times to run this malicious piece in the middle of a pandemic is irresponsible and reckless at best, but evidences clearly that they hate President Trump far more than they care about the American people or doing actual journalism and reporting facts.
Are they so afraid Trump is doing such a good job managing this that they have to invoke malicious pejoratives and hope someone is stupid enough to believe them?
The piece also makes some dangerous and false factual claims: “The president’s pathology is endangering not just institutions, but lives.” This presumes her “bat attic mind” diagnosis is an actual “pathology,” and that such “pathology” is actually in some provable way endangering lives. That’s a leap too far.
The legal bar on criticism of a public figure is high. This is intended to ensure that controversial opinions are not silenced. But maybe it’s time the law reevaluates this standard. Should “fair comment” rationally and legally include a book critic making mental health diagnostics of a public figure she’s never met? This is dangerous. It’s also hate speech. Making statements that a person (even a public figure) has a loathsome disease is libel per se. Shouldn’t that include wildly false, reckless statements accusing someone of having a mental health disorder that could affect public perception?
This seems intentionally targeted toward the 2020 election. Maybe it’s time the law doesn’t allow intentionally reckless claims of bat attic minds or bat-sh*t crazy “analysis” to get printed under the auspices of legitimate journalism and “fair comment.” There is nothing fair or legitimate about this.
Jenna Ellis is a constitutional law attorney and the Senior Legal Adviser to the Trump 2020 campaign. She is an attorney to President Trump and author of “The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.”