Interesting New Yorker Story on Donald Trump-Incorrect Attribution!
Interesting New Yorker Story on Donald Trump-Incorrect Attribution!Summary of eRumor: An article written by Roy Kaplan that supposedly appeared in the New Yorker says that Donald Trump is a "giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment." The Truth: This commentary wasn't published by the New Yorker. Forwarded emails of the story that began making the rounds in early 2016 claimed that it was penned by an unnamed "political correspondent for Bloomberg" and was published in the New Yorker on February 1, 2016. But the article was actually written by Don Fredrick, a vocal critic of President Obama who publishes his commentaries at his fringe website, The Complete Obama Timeline. The general gist of the article, which was published in December 2015, is that Trump is a symbol of working class Americans rejecting political and media elites, as explained in its opening sentence:
The better question may be, “What is Donald Trump?” The answer: A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment.Even though this particular article was not published in the New Yorker, however, an article with a similar theme — voters giving the finger to the political establishment by supporting Trump — was published in the magazine in November 2015. The commentary, which was written by James Surowiecki and appeared on the magazine's "Financial Page," begins:
Donald Trump’s campaign slogan is “Make America Great Again!” A better one might be “Only in America.” You could not ask for a better illustration of the complexity of ordinary Americans’ attitudes toward class, wealth, and social identity than the fact that a billionaire’s popularity among working-class voters has given him the lead in the race for the Republican Presidential nominationIn a recent Washington Post/ABC poll, Trump was the candidate of choice of a full third of white Republicans with no college education. Working-class voters face stagnant wages and diminished job prospects, and a 2014 poll found that seventy-four per cent of them think “the U.S. economic system generally favors the wealthy.” Why on earth would they support a billionaire?
In the end, both stories summarize support for Trump as a stand against the political establishment and elitism — but the stories are very different, and Fredrick's commentary has been incorrectly attributed to the New Yorker.
Collected on: 08/04/2016
A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:
THE NEW YORKER on Trump
No matter who your favorite candidate might be … the article is an interesting read.
The author is the political correspondent for Bloomberg and wrote extensively about Obama even before he was elected and he did it with facts . This article is a reminder that history shows presidential candidates are often elected based on the state of the union and mood of the people in a particular election cycle. If either Hillary or Bernie is elected, better start preparing for the collapse of America as we know it. The author seems to understand that and is sending a warning.
THE NEW YORKER: Monday, February 1, 2016 11:29 AM, Excellent read. The author is the political correspondent for Bloomberg.
The better question may be, “What is Donald Trump?” The answer: A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment.
Some Trump supporters are like the 60s white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents. But most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Demosocialists and the “Republicans in Name Only.” They know there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Hillary Rodham and Jeb Bush, and only a few cents worth between Rodham and the other GOP candidates. Ben Carson is not an “establishment” candidate, but the Clinton machine would pulverize Carson, and the somewhat rebellious Ted Cruz will (justifiably so) be tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Marco Rubio). The Trump supporters figure they may as well have some fun tossing Molotov cocktails at Wall Street and Georgetown while they watch the nation collapse. Besides, lightning might strike, Trump might get elected, and he might actually fix a few things. Stranger things have happened. (The nation elected a Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner now wears designer dresses.)
Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious. They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014 and have seen them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the GOP in 2016? Why? Trump did not come from out of nowhere. His candidacy was created by the last six years of Republican failures.
No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates will slash federal spending, rein in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, etc.). Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education. (Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.) No reasonable person can believe that any of the nation’s major problems will be solved by Rodham, Bush, and the other dishers of donkey fazoo now eagerly eating corn in Iowa and pancakes in New Hampshire.
Many Americans, and especially Trump supporters, have had it with: