No media conspiracy here
The problem with most conspiracy theories is that they rely on an unimaginable feat of unified vision and collaborative success being amalgamated from thousands of different players. The Anti-Trump Media Theory is no exception. Do people really think that the countless multitudes of senior editors of newspapers and magazines, television reporters, syndicated columnists and cartoonists all meet in some vast board room in Rockefeller Center that says “MEDIA” on the door and carefully plow through an agenda that has the title “Ways the Liberal Media Can Bring Down Trump” written across the top?
Trump could have a more amicable relationship with reporters if he wanted one. But he doesn't. He wants to nourish his political body on the red meat of anti-establishment angst. That requires gaslighting the American people into adopting a cynical impression of mainstream news media. If the media seem anti-Trump, it's because the Trump team is working very hard to make them appear so. Any resulting blowback is entirely a self-imposed hardship on his part.
Response to Harrop
Michael Moore is a loyal American who speaks up to the powers that run our country both in our corporations and government. He supported Bernie Sanders, which many of those both within the Democratic Party and independents also did.
I watched how the Democratic Party sidelined Jesse Jackson's runs for the presidency in the '80s. I expected this to happen with Bernie and saw this repeat again in spite of many polls that indicated Sanders would have performed better than Trump in the election.
Rather than blame Nader, Sanders or others who criticize the way the controlling parts of the Democratic Party have acted, the Democratic Party needs to understand why they haven't been appealing or electable. If the Republicans side with the wealthy in their policies, shouldn't the Democrats speak strongly for the working and middle class? The money to be elected came to Sanders from small contributions and it could to others if they truly have the integrity of Sanders.
BAU vs. WWS
Air pollution and extreme heat already combine to threaten the Rogue Valley as air pollution stimulates new diagnoses of, and exacerbates outstanding, cardiac, pulmonary and asthma diseases, often leading to premature death.
Our business-as-usual (BAU) energy behavior causes an upward spiraling demand for energy and price of fossil fuels — an energy resource in limited supply.
Meanwhile, non-polluting wind-water-solar (WWS) energy can replace BAU fossil fuels. Not only does WWS not require mining, transporting or processing, but its end-use efficiency is also generally greater than that of BAU fuels. Let’s follow the money! According to Stanford environmental engineer Mark Jacobson, WWS can create millions of permanent full-time jobs and avoid premature air-pollution deaths; it can also reduce climate pollution costs and global warming. Transitioning to WWS should also stabilize energy prices since fuel costs are zero, reduce power disruptions, and increase access to energy by decentralizing power. WWS also can help avoid the 1.5 C global warming.
By following the money, we see that the BAU likely compromises our health and economy while WWS has the potential to create money and improve quality of life. What do we have to lose from WWS? Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
Louise D. Shawkat