in the vicinity
Kurtz: The hypocrisy in the Trump-Kim-cover
‘MediaBuzz’ host Howard Kurtz weighs in on partisan reporting, according to the President of Trump meeting with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Un.
On this, perhaps, we all agree that It is better that President Trump speaks, Kim Jong-Un as the exchange of threats of nuclear war.
And so the Singapore, sitdown, the first between the leaders of America and North Korea, was a step in the right direction.
There are all sorts of legitimate criticism to be leveled at the process. But I was really impressed by the relentless negativity of many liberal commentators. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews moments went on to Trump after the first hand, because he dared to put his hand on Kim’s back. Jeremy Bash, Obama aide turned NBC commentator, that is to say, the display of U.S. and North Korean flags and “disgusting.”
So much is undoubtedly true: If Barack Obama had a breakthrough summit with the leader of North Korea, the liberal-districts of the media price would be nominating him for a Nobel.
We don’t have to guess about that, since it is largely Obama’s support of nuclear deal with Iran, the Trump recently withdrew. (Admittedly, had a whole Regime of inspections and verification, but Trump and Kim are just starting).
And they cheered Obama, the meeting with Fidel Castro and the resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba, in spite of the repressive nature of the regime.
Trump was perhaps a bit too exaggerated in his praise, but there really is no argument that Kim is a horrible person, who kills and jails his opponents.
When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, scored the first broadcast network interview with Trump in a year, asked Kim “police state” with “forced starvation, labor camps, he murdered members of his own family,” the President replied, “George, I’m given what I’m given. Okay?”
The fact is that American presidents negotiated with the old Soviet leaders who crushed human rights, and with China, a repressive dictatorship. The world is full of bad guys. This does not mean to engage that the United States should refuse.
The print and online reporting, followed a similar pattern. “Sure, it looks as if President Trump was duped in Singapore,” wrote New York Times columnist Nick Kristof. “Trump has a huge concession — the suspension of the military exercises with South Korea In exchange for these concessions, to have Trump seems to have gained surprisingly little.”
The criticism has not all come from the left. During Salon Singapore called “Trump and Kim’s Big-Nothing summit,” The Weekly Standard, A summit About Nothing, was the heading: “In reality, the meeting in Singapore was not a negotiation. Nor was it ever a: you do not hash to the end of the 60-year conflict and the absence of a complex nuclear weapons program in the course of 45 minutes.”
This is not true. It is also true that you can eliminate a complex nuclear program without the negotiations start somewhere.
It is just an uneasy feeling to Kim’s intentions, the terrible nature of the regime, and whether he ever his nuclear bombs. But the approaches of the last 30 years have not worked, either.
Nate Silver, the left-oriented data analyst, had a striking observation on Twitter: “90% of the punditocracy comment on the Singapore summit seems to be designed with the goal to convince people that Trump analyze any credit for it—instead of soberly, the advantages and disadvantages of the” deal.'”
Maybe, along with a skeptical, wait-and-see attitude, the press, the President could give the benefit of the doubt before the debate, the effort to create a failure.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and host of “MediaBuzz” (Sundays 11 p.m.). He is the author of “media madness: Donald Trump, the press, and The war for the truth.” You can follow him at @Howard Kurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.