The mainstream media has been doing a lot to cover up Donald Trump increasingly lose his mental faculties – and it could backfire on them.
When US president, Joe Biden, mumbled at one point during his last presidential debate, the mainstream media relentlessly attacked him, proclaiming that he is mentally unfit, that he’s old, and just generally not able to carry on as the US president. These attacks were non-stop as the media kept trying to convince everyone how the Democrats were pretty much set to lose the election as a result of… Biden mumbling at one point.
As days of attacks turned to weeks of attacks, Democrats began to panic and some eventually threw Biden under the bus as calls for him to step down grew because, well, if it was printed and broadcast on mainstream media, then it must be true! This only further emboldened mainstream media to continue their relentless attacks as self-described journalists waved around letters asking Biden to step down as further proof that Biden is going to be the end of the Democrats hold on power. Ultimately, the mainstream media’s war on Biden became a success as they successfully brought him down when Biden announced that he is stepping aside.
Now, this would all just be stupid politics if the consequences weren’t so serious. This comes in the form of who Biden was running against – Donald Trump. Between Trumps rantings and ravings as well as Project 2025 and what his inner circle is calling for, Trump is proving again and again that he wants to completely toss American democracy into the trash and hopes to turn the country into an autocracy with him in charge. He already got his US Supreme court ruling that the president is above the law and is immune from the consequences of illegal acts and observers have already noted that this basically gives Trump the legal right to assassinate political foes.
Now, in normal times, none of this is really a problem. The mainstream media would utilize their professional journalists to do things like talking about Project 2025 and what it means. Experts would be brought out to explain their thoughts on what each section is about and the impacts it would have on the country. Further, when Trump issues bizarre answers that don’t really answer the question, that would be reflected in the reporting. If Trumps rantings continue to go completely unhinged, the same questions that were pushed onto Biden about Trump’s age and mental competence would circulate freely as well. Unfortunately, we don’t live in normal times and that’s not what actually happened.
Instead, for many mainstream media outlets, a policy of “see no Project 2025, hear no project 2025, say no Project 2025” was implemented (yes, that is a three monkeys reference). This is something I’ve personally seen on numerous occasions on mainstream media broadcasts. A guest comes on the show to talk about the US election and when they bring up Project 2025, the reporter talking to that person starts shifting around uncomfortably in their seat and do everything they can to quickly change the subject in an effort to steer clear of the topic altogether. If multiple people are warning about Project 2025, that is probably a pretty big hint that maybe this is a story worth exploring, but instead, mainstream media is desperately trying to sweep any and all references of Project 2025 under the rug.
Even worse is the long standing policy of sane washing Donald Trump. It is well known that Trump is giving speeches at rallies and “answering” questions with increasingly bizarre and unintelligible gibberish and word salads. Had Trump been a Democrat, these non answers and insane rantings would easily be headline news. Yet, you rarely, if ever, hear about this issue. Instead, the mainstream media has a tendency of also sweeping this completely under the rug. In response, the mainstream media very carefully selects clips that make Trump look as sane as humanly possible – or just not bothering with clips altogether and just re-writing what he said to make him look as competent as humanly possible. A luxury that was never afforded to Biden to say the least.
This activity is generally known as “sane washing”. This activity by the mainstream media has been well documented by independent news sources. Here’s Mother Jones:
A good example occurred last week. As you might have noticed—especially if you read the Dumbass Comment of the Week feature in the most recent issue (the premium version for subscribers)—Trump, while delivering a speech at the Economic Club of New York, went on a long, somewhat nonsensical ramble when asked whether he would support child care legislation if he returns to the White House. He began his answer with a heaping portion of word salad: “Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is.” Then, in nearly incomprehensible sentences, he suggested that the massive tariffs he intends to impose on imported goods—a policy that numerous economists say will cause inflation, increase the deficit, and serve as a massive tax hike for middle- and low-income Americans—will generate money that could be used for child care. Read his response for yourself. It was not the answer of an intellectually sharp (or perhaps competent) person. And it would be reasonable for an American to worry about someone who thinks and speaks in this manner inhabiting the White House.
Yet this is how the New York Times covered Trump’s speech. Under the headline (in the hard-copy edition) “Trump Backs Panel On Efficiency,” it led with the fact that during this address Trump “called for the creation of an economic efficiency commission” that would be headed by billionaire troll Elon Musk and recommend “drastic reforms” for cutting government waste that would save “trillions of dollars.” This was a positive framing of the event. Though the third paragraph characterized Trump’s speech as “sometimes meandering” and the end of the article noted that Trump replied to the child care question with a “jumbled and winding answer,” the most important paper in the land did not shine the spotlight on Trump’s incoherence and inability to fashion a straightforward reply to a basic query.
It isn’t just Mother Jones noting this activity. Here’s New Republic on the issue:
Four years ago, in an article for Media Matters for America, I warned that journalists were sanitizing Donald Trump’s incoherent ramblings to make them more palatable for the average voter. The general practice went like this: The press would take something Trump said or did—for instance, using a visit to the Centers for Disease Control to ask about Fox News’s ratings, insult then–Washington Governor Jay Inslee, rant about his attempt to extort Ukraine into digging up dirt on Joe Biden, and downplay the rising number of Covid-19 cases in the U.S.—and write them up as The New York Times did: “Trump Says ‘People Have to Remain Calm’ Amid Coronavirus Outbreak.” This had the effect of making it seem like Trump’s words and actions seemed cogent and sensible for the vast majority of Americans who didn’t happen to watch his rant live.
Flash-forward to today, and it’s clear this problem has only worsened. As Trump’s statements grow increasingly unhinged in his old age, major news outlets continue to reframe his words, presenting a dangerously misleading picture to the public.
So, here’s a pretty big question in all of this: why is the mainstream media providing so much political cover for Trump with their obviously biased reporting? Truth be told, there’s no one answer to this.
One answer in all of this could very easily be the ownership of the media landscape today. Over the last few decades, media companies have increasingly been owned by wealthy people and corporations who have long supported right wing politics. As a result, they are using their influence to change political coverage to try and make right wing politician’s look favourable and left leaning politician’s look as bad as humanly possible. All of this under the guise of providing professional fact driven coverage even though it is anything but.
Another answer could be the media increasingly relying on what is well known as the view from nowhere. In a nutshell, it is an effort to try to feign objectivity by simply refocusing coverage to be whatever the middle of two political extremes. Even when one side proves to be objectively worse than the other, journalists try to either rationalize what’s bad about that bad talking point or simply try and make the other side look just as bad even when it isn’t deserved (this is often referred to as “Both Sides Are Bad” or “BSAB” coverage). The reality is objectivity is grounded in fact, not pretending to be politically neutral at all costs. If one side is doing something that is objectively bad, you objectively report as such, not engage in, “Well, maybe there’s a way to make this seem reasonable” or “well, keep in mind that the other side did [insert random non-issue here] so the other side isn’t any better here, either.”
A third answer could revolve around the deterioration of the quality of journalism. Companies are increasingly buying up each other and consolidating whole list of businesses into one big consolidated mess. Then, when everything is under one roof, get to hacking and slashing of jobs, cutting pay and benefits, and stripping news rooms financially to the bone. This in an effort to satisfy share holders or venture capital firms. As a result, you get low quality garbage being passed off as professional news articles. As a result, poor decisions are being made that ends up providing political cover to people like Trump.
A fourth answer might be a mistaken belief that if mainstream media keeps providing political cover for people like Trump, then he and his followers would see that they are just reporting the news and, if Trump gets elected (God help us all), everyone would see that there’s no reason to go after media companies and their journalists as they are just there to provide the news of the day and not part of some political conspiracy to undermine right wing aspirations and intentions.
With respect to the last answer, there’s just one problem: Trump and his supporters don’t give a shit. From the very beginning, Trump and his followers firmly believe that journalism is the “enemy of the people“. Trump has long promised to open up libel laws to make journalism outlets pay for whatever grievances Trump has with the press. These grievances have continued to fester to this very day with promises of jailing reporters, stripping television licenses for broadcasters, and otherwise bully and harass anyone who would dare criticize him or anyone he associates with.
These types of talking points were repeated with the infamous “Enemy From Within” remarks where he promised to use the military to go after anyone who opposes him:
“I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people. Radical left lunatics,” Trump said told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo in an interview on “Sunday Morning Futures.”
“I think it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen,” he added.
Trump, of course, doubled down on those remarks as well by, in part, refusing to walk back on those earlier remarks.
Now, I know there are those out there who, at this point, would begin to utilize the typical copium that has been employed since Trumps first run for office. That specifically being that “he didn’t mean what he said”. This might be expanded upon by simply saying something along the lines of, “well, if he didn’t implement it in his first term, he probably won’t in his next term.” This is easily shut down by the fact that Trump, during his first term in office, had advisors who were able to tell him “no” or to try and steer him away from his most insane tendencies. If anything, Trump has learned from his term in office to surround himself with sycophants who won’t do that the next time around and carry out his marching orders. In Legal Eagle’s video endorsement of Kamala Harris, he went to great lengths to spell this reality out.
Of course, the major problem with all of this is the implications all of this has on freedom of expression. Journalism itself needs freedom of expression to carry out its work. Without freedom of expression, all you have are mouth pieces of the state telling you how the government wants you to think. This, of course, is an affront to the concept of democracy itself.
Indeed, while mainstream media has been repeatedly falling down on the job, smaller outlets like Freezenet still need the support of strong protections of expression to carry out important work. As you know, if a law pushing government internet censorship is tabled, sites like this one is all too happy to point out to why such a law is bad, the threats to freedom of expression it poses, the technological implications of what it all means, and so on and so forth. People like us do this without really caring which political party is pushing such a law. You saw this here with the Canadian government’s efforts to push Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. You also saw this when Canada’s Conservative party pushed for the equally censorial age verification laws. In order to carry out our analysis and provide information, sites like Freezenet absolutely needs freedom of expression to be reinforced (and, arguably, strengthened).
Yet, what Trump is representing is an effort to, in part, take us in the exact opposite direction. If, for instance, Trump and his Republican pals push for an internet censorship law, there needs to be legal protections to allow us to criticize such a law when it, among other things, represents a danger to freedom of expression. If Trump and his allies decides that my criticism is invalid for whatever reason, they shouldn’t be able to have the power to jail me for my perfectly valid criticisms of such a hypothetical law.
Even worse, criticism of a certain law shouldn’t also carry with it the risk of Trump calling on the military to have me shot (as insinuated by both the “Enemy from Within” remarks as well as the Supreme Court ruling saying that Trump is legally immune from prosecution). If anything, that creates a hostile environment that would encourage not only censorship, but also, self-censorship. Journalists who want to make the world a better place should not fear having to take a bullet to the head should they speak their minds, and if that’s the risk, then there are journalists out there who would rather not say anything at all and keep quiet for fears of their own personal safety.
While this is a potential risk for smaller outlets such as our (since we don’t have as many protections as the larger outlets out there), this could also create a bad situation for even the mainstream media. Mainstream media outlets are much more publicly visible and have a much larger reach. As such, when they publish something, there are more eyeballs on that publication. As a result, if anything in that piece is considered “offensive” to Trump, there is a much greater chance that Trump is going to want to retaliate against either that journalist, that outlet, or both.
If there is a way of rationalizing this idea that “we’re professional” and “we’re politically neutral” would somehow spare them from the wrath of a thin-skinned wannabe dictator, I’m not seeing it.
That brings me back to how the mainstream media is continually providing political cover for Trump’s most outrageous tendencies. By covering up the insane rantings and ravings, the mainstream media is presenting a highly distorted image of reality of what Trump really is. That warped image is of Trump just being an ordinary highly popular politician that has normal political things to say. You know, that whole “he’s a businessman” line and tip-toeing around the fact that Trump is a convicted felon.
The risk here is more than just the media just, yet again, screwing up on the job. There are people out there who are undecided who will simply believe that image. After all, the media told them that Trump is just a normal politician, what place do they have to question that? As a result, this increases the chance that those people will vote for Trump. Not for who he is or what he really represents, but rather, the mainstream medias distortion of what they want people to believe who Trump is and what he represents. The knock on effect is obvious: increasing the chances that Trump wins the election.
If the mainstream media succeeds in this and the sane washing is effective enough, Trump could very well win the election – not necessarily by popular vote, but because of the much criticized electoral college vote. It doesn’t take a genius to understand where things go from there. Trump will do what he can to enact everything he promised he would enact, unimpeded by anyone who are willing to tell him “no”. If that means banning several civil rights, so be it. If that means censoring the media and threatening them, by all means. With respect to the latter, that could cost the mainstream media dearly.
While journalists working within the borders of the United States would be under immediate threat, those outside of the US borders aren’t exactly immune from all of this. The United States has numerous extradition treaties all over the world. What’s more, it’s not as though anything is stopping US military from just making their way across the boarder and going after anyone they don’t like. Trump, after all, looks up to countries like China and North Korea. If they think it’s a good idea to take down people in other countries (or have them arrested and dragged back into their own country) for being politically inconvenient, why can’t Trump?
Either way, I can’t see things being anything other than ugly for mainstream media and the journalists who work for them. As a result, they may very well, at some point, realize that they are becoming the architect of their own demise. They are helping Trump win a second election, after all. As a result, they may eventually find out how brilliant their BSAB strategies really are when they are behind bars.
