We should distinguish between the free press and the news. The recent revelation that the New York Times intends to begin painting Trump as a racist since the whole collusion with Russia things is dead is insightful… it uncovers what most have suspected and felt, that the media is no longer about reporting “the news” but rather about influencing public opinion to support a political position.
I do think Tulsi Gabbard bring an independent perspective to the Democratic debate even if I don’t agree with many of her positions. I do think she arrives at them honestly. I also think she has integrity. For example, as a past soldier, she brings the “soldier’s perspective” to foreign policy. In simple words, she asks the basic question “what are we doing here”, “what is the mission”, and “how will we decide when its time to leave.”
She approaches foreign policy in a way that leads to similar conclusions as Trump. Trump sees “no profit” in extended involvement in the politics of foreign nations… Tulsi Gabbard sees the “cost in blood and military hardware” from the extended stays in these countries.
But the press is largely focused at confronting or supporting Trump and not what should the US policy be on any given issue. In theory, an honest press should have a consistent view on various policies that extend across multiple presidencies rather than evolve with each new President to line up behind the policies of the party it endorses.
And so the media has no use for an independent thinker like Gabbard because some of her policies might align with Trump. That simply cannot be tolerated. So as progressive liberals try to lead a country down a road where the party elite turn the population into dependents of the government as they take away and giveth, Gabbard seems to simply want to fine tune national policies with which she does not agree. Leaving the power in the hands of the people.
