Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) decried journalists’ touting America’s Wuhan Virus death rates as being greater than the People’s Republic of China’s. “Grotesque,” he tweeted about it. And he’s being generous, I say.
Naturally, journalists’ feelings were hurt by that, and they bellyached loudly. Michelle Goldberg, for instance:
Journalists are concentrated in cities that are being ravaged by a plague that could have been better contained with a competent president. They’re lonely and scared and reporting while homeschooling their kids. No one feels glee or delight. Some of us feel white hot rage[.]
Taking advantage of the Wuhan Virus situation to attack the President, while carefully ignoring her fellows’ attacks of racism and xenophobia for the steps he did take early on. Sure.
This tweet [Rubio’s “grotesque” tweet] is grotesque. Delete it.
There’s that censorship sewage so favored of journalists who can’t abide others disagreeing with them or their pre-established narrative. That so many other venues also favor this implementation of censorship in no way excuses these guys—who have a grotesque way of acting as our filters, our gateways, to information.
Senator, either you have no clue what you’re talking about or you’re being a jerk. I have friends in this industry who have the virus. We have to make exceptionally challenging calls about sending reporters into hot spots or places where they could get it. Do better[.]
Crocodile tears about friends whom he’s now fashioning into weapons for another attack on the President. Some friend. And his “exceptionally challenging calls” on what to cover? It’s his and his editor’s “challenging calls” to wholly ignore areas that aren’t hotspots; to wholly ignore recovery rates; and to choose to focus, ghoulishly, on body counts.
These wonders—every single one of them—make Rubio’s case, pretty dramatically.