September 4, 2024
coherence bias
How the Media Sanitizes Trump’s
Insanity
The political press’s efforts to
rationalize Trump’s incoherent statements are eroding our shared reality and
threatening informed democracy.
Ian Maule/Getty
Images
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.
The
video player is currently playing an ad.
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.
For
instance, last week, Trump posted the following to his Truth Social
account:
I have reached an agreement with the
Radical Left Democrats for a Debate with Comrade Kamala Harris. It will be
Broadcast Live on ABC FAKE NEWS, by far the nastiest and most unfair newscaster
in the business, on Tuesday, September 10th, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The
Rules will be the same as the last CNN Debate, which seemed to work out well
for everyone except, perhaps, Crooked Joe Biden. The Debate will be “stand up,”
and Candidates cannot bring notes, or “cheat sheets.” We have also been given assurance
by ABC that this will be a “fair and equitable” Debate, and that neither side
will be given the questions in advance (No Donna Brazile!). Harris would not
agree to the FoxNews Debate on September 4th, but that date will be held open
in case she changes her mind or, Flip Flops, as she has done on every single
one of her long held and cherished policy beliefs. A possible third Debate,
which would go to NBC FAKE NEWS, has not been agreed to by the Radical Left.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
CNN described that
rambling, insult-laden, conspiracy-riddled wall of text—itself a pretty good
example of what he spends his time off the campaign trail doing—by writing,
“Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced he has ‘reached an
agreement’ to participate in a September 10 debate with Vice President Kamala
Harris, noting that ‘the rules will be the same as the last CNN debate, which
seemed to work out well for everyone.’”
Does
that really capture what Trump posted?
Days
earlier, Trump heralded the endorsement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a man who has
long pushed baseless claims that vaccines cause autism, by saying that “a panel
of top experts, working with Bobby,” would “investigate what is causing the
decades-long increase in chronic health problems and childhood diseases,
including autoimmune disorders, autism, obesity, infertility, and more.”
In
its write-up of that portion of Trump’s speech, The New York Times omitted Trump’s mention of autism,
simply writing that “Mr. Trump said that, if elected to a second term, a panel
of experts ‘working with Bobby’ would investigate obesity rates and other
chronic health issues in the United States.” By removing the mention of autism,
which should be a red flag whenever paired with a mention of Kennedy, the Times took
an obvious nod to a conspiracy theory and turned it into a normal-sounding
policy proposal.
While
speaking at an event put on by the extremist group Moms for Liberty,
Trump spread a baseless conspiracy theory that
“your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation,”
referring to transition-related surgeries for trans people. In their write-up of the event,
a glowing piece about how Trump “charmed” this group of “conservative moms,”
the Times didn’t even mention the moment where he blathered on
and on about a crazy conspiracy that has and will never happen.
This
“sanewashing” of Trump’s statements isn’t just poor journalism; it’s a form of
misinformation that poses a threat to democracy. By continually reframing
Trump’s incoherent and often dangerous rhetoric as conventional political
discourse, major news outlets are failing in their duty to inform the public
and are instead providing cover for increasingly erratic behavior from a
former—and potentially future—president.
The
consequences of this journalistic malpractice extend far beyond misleading
headlines. By laundering Trump’s words in this fashion, the media is actively
participating in the erosion of our shared reality. When major news outlets
consistently present a polished version of Trump’s statements, they create an
alternate narrative that exists alongside the unfiltered truth available on
social media and in unedited footage.
Voters
who rely solely on traditional news sources are presented with a version of
Trump that bears little resemblance to reality. They see a former president
who, while controversial, appears to operate within the bounds of normal
political discourse—or at worst, is breaking with it in some kind of refreshing
manner. You can see this folie à deux at work in a recent Times piece occasioned
by Trump’s amplification of social media posts alleging that Harris owed her
career to the provision of “blowjobs”: “Though he has a history of making crass
insults about his opponents, the reposts signal Mr. Trump’s willingness to
continue to shatter longstanding norms of political speech.” Meanwhile, those
who seek out primary sources encounter a starkly different figure—one prone to
conspiracy theories, personal attacks, and extreme rhetoric.
The
Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg wrote about
this in a June newsletter,
explaining the role the press plays in this sanitation of Trump by journalists
while remarking on a rambling speech in which Trump went on a tangent about
shark attacks and using some sort of electrocution device to fend them off:
It works like this: Trump sounds nuts,
but he can’t be nuts, because he’s the presumptive nominee for president of a
major party, and no major party would nominate someone who is nuts. Therefore,
it is our responsibility to sand down his rhetoric, to identify any kernel of
meaning, to make light of his bizarro statements, to rationalize. Which is why,
after the electric-shark speech, much of the coverage revolved around the high
temperatures in Las Vegas, and other extraneities. The Associated Press headline
on a story about the event read this way: “Trump Complains About His
Teleprompters at a Scorching Las Vegas Rally.” The New York Times headlined
its story thus: “In Las Vegas, Trump Appeals to Local Workers and Avoids Talk
of Conviction.” CNN’s headline: “Trump Proposes Eliminating Taxes on Tips at
Las Vegas Campaign Rally.”
Over
the weekend, the Times seemed intent on validating Goldberg’s
words with a questionable “campaign notebook” article titled “Meandering? Off-Script? Trump Insists
His ‘Weave’ Is Oratorical Genius.”
Writer
Shawn McCreesh drew generous parallels between Trump’s speaking style and
celebrated wordsmiths:
Certainly, in the history of
narrative, there have been writers celebrated for their ability to be
discursive only to cleverly tie together all their themes with a neat bow at
the end—William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens and Larry David come to mind.
He
then added, “But in the case of Mr. Trump, it is difficult to find the
hermeneutic methods with which to parse the linguistic flights that take him
from electrocuted sharks to Hannibal Lecter’s cannibalism, windmills and Rosie
O’Donnell.”
McCreesh
didn’t stop there. He went on to liken Trump to literary giants James Joyce and
William Faulkner, and even psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.
“In
a world of canned political speeches, Mr. Trump’s style is beloved by his
supporters, who enjoy these frequent glimpses into his id.”
This
analysis goes beyond mere sanitization; it ventures into the realm of the
absurd. By framing Trump’s incoherent ramblings as some form of avant-garde
oratory, the Times isn’t just failing to accurately
report—it’s actively warping reality to its readers.
The
consequences of this extend beyond misleading headlines or sanitized quotes.
It’s creating a dangerous disconnect between reality and reported news,
fostering an environment where extreme rhetoric becomes normalized and
conspiracy theories gain unwarranted legitimacy.
This
won’t remain just a Trump problem. As other politicians observe the media’s
willingness to soften and reframe inflammatory statements, we risk further
degradation of political discourse. The bar for what’s considered acceptable
rhetoric continues to lower, while the public’s ability to discern fact from
fiction erodes.
To
combat this, we need a paradigm shift in political reporting. Instead of
contorting themselves to find rationality in incoherence, journalists should
simply present politicians’ words and actions plainly, complete with
fact-checks. This might mean rethinking traditional notions of “objectivity”
that often lead to false equivalencies and misrepresentation.
Readers,
too, have a role to play. We must seek out primary sources, demand more
comprehensive reporting, and support news outlets that prioritize accuracy over
access or the appearance of “balance.”
As
we approach another critical election, the quality of our discourse hangs in
the balance. The health of our democracy depends on an electorate that’s truly
informed, not just placated with sanitized versions of reality. It’s time for
both the media and the public to recommit to the pursuit of truth, however
uncomfortable that may be.
