Chronicle columnist Julie McDonald’s hit piece on Joe Kent — a three-part commentary published on the Opinion page — is a disgrace. She interjected her bias into the commentary when she claimed she wouldn’t vote for him because he believes the 2020 election had problems. Many people still have election questions. It doesn’t mean they’re wrong. She used the term Baby Trumper and accused Trump of being racist without proof. That’s not journalism. (Editor’s note: The column was an opinion piece published on the Opinion page.)
If Ms. McDonald was a true journalist, she would state Joe Kent’s positions at the beginning without any personal commentary. (Editor’s note: Julie McDonald is a columnist, not a reporter. She writes commentary for The Chronicle.)
People are taught to skim articles and form their opinion from there. That’s why real journalists put the bottom-line up front. In this case, she highlighted his personal beliefs as radical and undemocratic. Careful wording is meant to mislead readers and feed conspiracy believers. Such as “no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” There was fraud, just not widespread. One illegal vote will cancel one valid vote. In whose world is that morally right? A survey after the 2020 election found 53% of voters would have voted differently had the truth been told about Hunter Biden’s laptop. But over 50 intelligence people stated, “it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.” Notice they never said it was Russian disinformation. Using Factcheck.org, Wikipedia or Snopes as reference points are tainted from the start. Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, has completely divorced himself from the site because of the bias that has overtaken it. Do real research.
I didn’t see an article about Mayor Durkin when the only person to die in Seattle’s CHOP zone was a young Black man. He was allowed to suffer pain for hours until he passed, and she did nothing. Did she allow it to happen because he was Black?
We call this Seagull Leadership in the Army. Fly in, flap your wings, make a lot of noise, crap on everybody and leave. No one learned anything from the article. She set the stage to turn people off up front. Naturally, part two and three contained some policy coverage, but the damage was done. At least she’ll be able to claim she covered his positions. Unfortunately, many will follow her lead and praise her for her journalistic acumen while being duped.
Why is she so shallow and duplicitous to base her vote on issues of election doubt and Trump as a racist? She is a narcissist. Hers is a squandered vote based on an opinion after admitting she found more common ground with Kent than she had anticipated. A more sagacious adult would swallow the ego and just be honest.
Do I fully agree with Joe Kent? No. But he is far more well informed and possesses a much deeper appreciation for the expectation of our leaders on the world stage than our present representative. No one who has ever seen war wants to go back, but when they do, they expect those making the decisions to understand why the trip is necessary and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez doesn’t understand any of it.
Ray Anderson
Ethel
