Once again members of the the left, from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton, to the mainstream media have attempted to "label" Donald Trump supporters just to find that those supporters have "appropriated the term" that was meant to define them.
Breitbart highlights a New York Time piece where the writer admits that the MSM's "fake news" meme has backfired against the lying media.
Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that that fake stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.
We have to wonder what "agenda" the NYT writer is referring to? As part of the Independent Media that supported Trump, first against the other 16 politicians that ran in the Republican primary, then against in the general against Hillary Clinton, I can say my "agenda" was multi-faceted. It included, but was not limited to; electing an outsider, someone that wasn't a career politician; wanting secure borders; to stop open borders; electing someone that wasn't scared to name radical Islamic terrorists when they attacked us and claimed allegiance to ISIS, and; I wanted someone who could bring jobs back to America and stop the constant liberal policies that have caused a record amount of the populace to be on welfare.... just to name a few items on my "agenda."
The point here isn't our "agenda," it is that we in the Independent Media haven't turned the term "fake news" against the MSM by "appropriating the term" because they were "hostile" to our agenda, we call them fake news because they have been caught blatantly lying to their audience, with intent.
Historians may look back on the 2016 presidential election season as one of the most brutal campaigns in modern history, but what most might miss is that the real "war" of the 2016 presidential election was an Information War.
The mainstream media came down, almost as a whole, on the side of Hillary Clinton, while providing constant negative attacks against Donald Trump and his supporters, which was admitted publicly by CNN host Chris Cuomo who said on national television before Clinton had officially announced her candidacy, "We couldn’t help her anymore than we have. You know, she’s just got a free ride so far from the media and we’re the biggest ones promoting her campaign."
ANP readers have seen the 24 second clip below, but for anyone that doubts the veracity of my assertion above, watch him say it for yourself.
Further proof of that statement came from the leaked emails provided to Wikileaks, where it was exposed that major media personalities from ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Bloomberg, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, MSNBC, NBC, New Yorker, New York Times, People, Politico, AP, BuzzFeed, Reuters, and WSJ, and others, to attend "off the record cocktails" with Clinton campaign members days before Clinton launched her campaign.
As ANP reported when the information was revealed by Wikileaks, included in the list of Clinton campaign "goals" of conducting these "off the record" dinners and cocktails with these media members, is "Framing the HRC message and framing the race."
The above graphic from the Ron Paul Liberty Report represents a small fraction of those that helped "frame" Hillary Clinton's message throughout the campaign, while conservative Independent Media also known as Alternative Media, a large majority of which supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, highlighted the corruption within the DNC and the MSM, that was exposed on a weekly (sometimes daily) basis by Wikileaks and other groups.
The 2016 presidential election became more about the candidates supporters than it did about the candidates themselves, but more importantly it became a war of information, where the MSM, who for decades controlled the narrative, found themselves flailing as Independent Media highlighted things the MSM didn't want to "inform" their audience of, and in many cases forcing the MSM to address the topic, even when it was only to defend Hillary.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SNOWFLAKES AND THE DEPLORABLES
The term "deplorable" was meant to be a derogatory term, lumping all Trump supporters into one "basket," but conservative Trump supporters took it as a badge of honor, changed their Twitter handles to add "deplorable" before or after their name, in comment sections, forums and Independents sites all across the Internet we could see the all types of variations on the term "deplorable," being used to proudly show support for Trump.
Trump himself helped hijack the term when he entered a Miami Rally in September 2016 to the anthem of "Les Deplorables," with a video screen behind the podium flashed to an artistic rendering of 'Les Deplorables,' complete with USA and 'Trump' flags replacing the French colors, and a bald eagle soaring over the revolutionary scene. (Source - Daily Mail)
Trump greeted his fans at that rally with 'Welcome to all of you deplorables!', as thousands screamed 'Trump! Trump! Trump!' and 'We love you!'
Trump supporters believed that if it was "deplorable" to want border security, to stop open borders, to fix the vetting process so terrorists weren't brought into America along with refugees, to want manufacturing jobs brought back to the U.S., to start to fix the economy, to dump regulations that are harming the economy, to turn back some of the most egregious executive orders by Obama, and more...... then they were proud to be "deplorable."
On the other hand, the "snowflakes," the progressive liberals that spend days crying, took to the streets to protest the results of the election, those who started rioting in Oregon, who tried to threaten the electoral college members with death if they cast their vote to represent the state vote for Trump, could not hijack the term "snowflake" as a badge of honor, because they consistently screamed for their safe space, hid away with their coloring books and crayons, and played with play-doh, so it is understandable that not once have we noticed them declaring "pride" in their "snowflakiness." (Yes I made that word up!)
Instead, their reaction to being called out for acting like spoiled children in need of binkies and diapers, because their candidate did not win, is represented perfectly in a comment left on an ANP piece I wrote about Snowflakes being "yanked out of their safe space by reality," when a commenter by the name of "Ben" left me the following message "Susan, just so you know, you're exactly the kind of person I've dreamed of killing my entire life. Pray we never meet."
Note- Apparently after realizing what the comment revealed about himself, the user did try to change it, but I prevented the change because people need to see the type of mentality we are dealing with here.
Once again the MSM, Obama, Clinton and progressive liberals have over-played their hand. Had they stuck with the actual fake news from sites created to deliberately mimic MSM sites, such as the .com.co sites where they recreate the look of the real site and place hoaxes or satirical articles on the pages, or sites that deliberately push hoax stories without providing any links, any proof of their assertions and are created with the purpose of deceiving readers, their argument may have at least had some grounds for discussion.
Instead they attempted to label anyone exposing the truth about Hillary Clinton, specifically those that highlighted the verified emails leaked from her campaign and the DNC, as "fake news" spreading "Russian Propaganda," which makes the MSM's latest Hail Mary, their "fake news" meme, in and of itself... FAKE NEWS!
The irony of the NYT writer quoted at the top of the article, whining about conservatives appropriating the term "fake news" and turning it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda, when the MSM is the one that attempted to label anyone against their agenda as "fake news," is utterly delicious.