In the categories of “no, who do you think *you* are?” and “I know you are but what am I?” . . .

Pulitzer Winner Eviscerates Trump: “Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?”

Huffington Post writer (and Senior Editor), Rebecca Shapiro points us to an article titled Mr. President: ‘Just who the hell do you think you are?’ by Mr. Leonard Pitts, Jr., and writes,

Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Leonard Pitts Jr. excoriated President Donald Trump in a scathing editorial published Tuesday,

The columnist started his piece by referring to Trump as “Mr. So-Called President,” a reference to Trump’s smearing of a federal judge who temporarily blocked his executive order on travel and immigration.

In the battle of who thinks who is, we must remember that just because someone asks the question doesn’t mean they have the right to ask it, even if they say they do. It can be a valuable question to ask—even of a U.S. President. As in other areas of life, our own behavior often determines whether we have the right to ask certain questions. This is especially true if the question contains an obvious accusation, as the question “who the hell do you think you are?” clearly—and always—does. Sometimes, when someone asks that very accusatory, very insulting question, we must, as a matter of course, of dignity, yes, even of propriety, respond, “Well, who the hell do you think you are?”

The Huffington Post is in the category of press institutions for whom the response should almost always be, “Who the hell do you think you are?” And Shapiro reveals something of the background of Mr. Pitts that shows us his bias and should lead us to suspect his own objectivity.

She writes,

Just before the inauguration, Pitts wrote that he “refused to accept” Trump as “the new normal.”

Here’s the link to Pitts’s article published just a few days before Trump’s inauguration. In that article, Pitts says,

Shock upon shock, insult upon insult, falsehood upon falsehood, he has been a daily deluge of the unbelievable and the unthinkable until you don’t even know what to respond to first. Shall we answer the misogyny? But then, what about the bigotry? Shall we decry the incompetence? Will that leave us time to deal with the ignorance? The man is a white noise of badness.

Read the whole article if you want to understand how bad the state of mainstream news reporting is. “White noise of badness”? That phrase sounds like a description of the very article it’s found in. Sure, the article is just an opinion piece—much like my own pieces on WitGlass—but there is no logic or evidence of any kind in the earlier Pitts article. This is the man who “eviscerated” Trump. The question of who the hell Trump thinks he is—even if it’s the right question—is one Mr. Pitts hasn’t earned the right to ask.

And the Huffington Post, well, do I need to list the ways they have failed to earn the right to ask questions like that? This Shapiro article itself is proof enough. Shapiro presents the evisceration without commentary, but with the clear implication of support, yet does nothing to demonstrate its validity.

I think Mr. Pitts’s hell” article deserves a post of its own, so I won’t go into it in detail here. Perhaps I’ll come back here later and link to my new post, if I write it. For now, here’s a teaser showing what a hatchet-job it is, in all its pot-stirring, well-poisoning, question-begging, logic-bending, evidence-lacking glory:

You were elected as chief executive of the United States. I won’t belabor the fact that you won with a minority of the popular vote and a little help from your friends, FBI Director James Comey and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Ah, yes . . . and who, Mr. Pitts, in the name of all that’s holy, do you think you are?