Sean Spicer, We’ll Always Have ‘Facts’
"Sean Spicer, We'll Always Have 'Facts'", an editorial written in the New York Times by The Editorial Board, ridicules the role Sean Spicer has had as White House Press Secretary under the Trump Administration, and basically all he has done to lie for the President.
The Editorial Board consists of 16 editors, who all have various experience with the Times and with their education in our country, which I think makes them vastly credible. They contain not only both women and men but various races as well, which I think helps them tackle issues and writings from all different sides of society. Their main intended audience for this piece is those who are not fond of Sean Spicer, and probably those who are not fond of President Trump as well. Democrats would be more inclined to read this article, especially since it not only bashes a Republican but that the New York Times is a more liberal newspaper.
Their main argument is that Spicer was never fit for the job he previously held in our government and that he was a massive liar and supported Trump at all costs, even if he shouldn't have. By comparing Spicer to Pinocchio, the Disney character who is known to always lie, they appeal to the reader's emotions by trying to create humor and use a pop-culture reference. Sean Spicer was the one to suggest that Trump's inauguration had the largest audience in history, which was a complete lie. By mentioning this, the writers point out just one of the ways Spicer lied to protect Trump's name, even as early as the day after he became President. By mentioning the time Spicer called concentration camps, 'Holocaust Centers', The Editorial Board highlights the lack of sympathy Spicer has, to further their argument about Spicer lying and not being a generally good person. They even mention the time that Spicer did make the President angry and he denied Spicer "an audience with the Pope", yet Spicer still supported Trump and defended him, proving Spicer would basically defend Trump even if he knew it wasn't right or something that Trump was doing wasn't right. (No surprise there.) Lastly, they close by explaining how even when America was anxious and wondered what was ahead, Spicer was not honest with America, he lied to us and continued to follow Trump. This shows specifically how these writers felt about Spicer, and honestly that they are glad he's gone.
Personally, I agree with these writers, as Spicer was never fit for the job he was given, and Trump probably only gave it to him because he knew he would lie for him at all costs.
The Editorial Board consists of 16 editors, who all have various experience with the Times and with their education in our country, which I think makes them vastly credible. They contain not only both women and men but various races as well, which I think helps them tackle issues and writings from all different sides of society. Their main intended audience for this piece is those who are not fond of Sean Spicer, and probably those who are not fond of President Trump as well. Democrats would be more inclined to read this article, especially since it not only bashes a Republican but that the New York Times is a more liberal newspaper.
Their main argument is that Spicer was never fit for the job he previously held in our government and that he was a massive liar and supported Trump at all costs, even if he shouldn't have. By comparing Spicer to Pinocchio, the Disney character who is known to always lie, they appeal to the reader's emotions by trying to create humor and use a pop-culture reference. Sean Spicer was the one to suggest that Trump's inauguration had the largest audience in history, which was a complete lie. By mentioning this, the writers point out just one of the ways Spicer lied to protect Trump's name, even as early as the day after he became President. By mentioning the time Spicer called concentration camps, 'Holocaust Centers', The Editorial Board highlights the lack of sympathy Spicer has, to further their argument about Spicer lying and not being a generally good person. They even mention the time that Spicer did make the President angry and he denied Spicer "an audience with the Pope", yet Spicer still supported Trump and defended him, proving Spicer would basically defend Trump even if he knew it wasn't right or something that Trump was doing wasn't right. (No surprise there.) Lastly, they close by explaining how even when America was anxious and wondered what was ahead, Spicer was not honest with America, he lied to us and continued to follow Trump. This shows specifically how these writers felt about Spicer, and honestly that they are glad he's gone.
Personally, I agree with these writers, as Spicer was never fit for the job he was given, and Trump probably only gave it to him because he knew he would lie for him at all costs.
Comments