<\/p>\n
Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would\u2014in a heartbeat. And I would approve more than that. Don\u2019t kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn\u2019t work. . . . Believe me, it works. And you know what? If it doesn\u2019t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they\u2019re doing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The corporate media find Donald Trump to be by far the most newsworthy candidate of the 2016 presidential campaign. According to the Tyndall Report<\/a>, as of November 30, he accounted for more than a quarter of the campaign coverage on the nightly ABC, CBS and NBC newscasts, more than the all the Democrats combined. Both the New York Times<\/i> and the Washington Post<\/i> have made preliminary attempts to describe his rhetoric.<\/p>\n
Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman of the Times<\/i><\/a> \u201canalyzed every public utterance by Mr. Trump over the past week from rallies, speeches, interviews and news conferences\u201d\u201495,000 words, we are told. Four days later, Paul Schwartzman and Jenna Johnson of the Post<\/i><\/a> did a \u201creview of the businessman\u2019s speeches, interviews and thousands of tweets and retweets over the past six months.\u201d The Times<\/i> article focuses more on the content of the speeches while the Post<\/i> identifies what they call campaign strategy. Unfortunately, neither article describes the process by which the analyses were done or provides any meaningful data. I assume they simply read the speeches and recorded their impressions.<\/p>\n