Listened to David Axelrod last night on a podcast and he has come to the same conclusion as you. I also have been critical that the media shines too much light on Trump. But Axelrod thinks people outside Trump’s world really need to know how crazy he is…if you’re not plugged into his world you only get the toned down reporting by the media which makes him look semi-rational. The headline and story you quote are right on. And they are the truth. Perhaps comparing Trumps’ words with other dictators would help. No one thought Hitler really meant what he said. But boy did he. Fear is a strong motivating factor. The left should use it more.
I feel like one potential compromise is airing select full Trump speeches (perhaps his craziest ones, to really drive the point home) but not live. I’d do it on a delay with a full graphics package debunking and annotating the insanity. Ideally there would be clear headed commentary after the speech analyzing what we had all just watched. But I’m not sure who could provide such—the DC based talking heads have proven not up to the task or are considered sufficiently partisan that they would have little impact. What I yearn for is a widely respected national figure like Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite who could show a Trump speech and then just tell it like it is.
The press should print everything he says, BUT in red type print lie, predominantly false, this sentence means, fascist statement, Hitler said exactly the same thing in 1937, American is and has always been great. You know, clarifying remarks.
Yes, it’s time. Yes, fervent Trump supporters will get pumped up even more. And, yes, everyone needs to hear for themselves just what’s on November’s ballot.
Obviously we won't all do that. But the on-line version of print journalism, which doesn't have space limitations, could do something similar. At least once, reporters could record the entirety of a Trump rally speech (usually an hour or more), have it transcribed, and print it -- every word of it. They wouldn't even need to invest in fact-checking -- just put the whole thing out there for people to see, as they would if they attended the rally themselves.
People who are considering voting for Trump for President should be aware of what they are supporting. This exercise would be a step in that direction: no "bias," no interpretation, no "sanitizing" -- just Trump's own words.
Hi, Margaret—I agree that the remaining “reachable” voters need to repeatedly hear how crazy Trump is, perhaps in a largely unedited, daily news segment that contains the worst of his rants of that day, explicitly without intro commentary, followed by a silent pause to permit the nonsense to be fully appreciated by viewers. Give it a title: “The Daily Rant”.
I think one factor that argues for fuller coverage is the fact that millions of Gen Zers were in middle school when Trump was first elected in 2016. They might need more education about his first term and his philosphy of governing. Repeating what a public figure actually says is not biased. Neither is pointing out when that public figure tells untruths. But that's a pretty daunting task.
The issue seems more complex than a choice between snippets that may suggest cogency and full airing of speeches. The former carries the risks you note. The latter does as well but it is not clear that the public generally would have the time, patience, interest, or contextual knowledge to gauge the extent or depth of the dissonance. I’m not a journalist but I think the hard question here is what’s the middle ground between straightforward reporting and interpretation or description. The Guardian piece is labeled “analysis” which suggests it’s an opinion so some may discount it. Yet if not labeled analysis it could be portrayed by others as biased reporting. I don’t know the answer but perhaps the only course given the stakes is for more outlets to risk those bias accusations and be more direct in describing speeches and remarks in a broader context of interpretation.
Airing full Trump speeches is not a good idea, but showing full sentence or several sentence snippets with some minimal analysis is more than enough context for people to see how damaging this is. I read Rachel Leingang's article the other day and thought it was really good, but I wondered about who will read it.
The real hurdle seems to be reaching the majority of voters who have tuned everything out.
They are going to vote on what they think they know based on low information, disinformation, or misinformation, and tribal emotions.
Yes! But not in real time. Delayed so chyron can point out the disinformation. Then commenters can describe, provide facts, discuss threats, … and start pointing out his obvious cognitive issue.
A concern is that the major print media, that has the benefit of time is normalizing trump as well. They prints ‘both sides ’ headlines and pulls punches on the violent rhetoric, unhinged behaviors and doesn’t call out lies and disinformation for what it is.
I agree: it's time for the media to write and broadcast more of Trump's words. People can excuse a bad sound bite as edited to be biased or as lacking context...whereas a longer segment is harder to dismiss.
That said, I have to repeat my staunch belief that no amount of incoherence, cruelty, or vulgarity on Trump's part is a bridge too far for his supporters. I think the ONLY way for the media to break through the cult's denial is to show Trump as he makes a promise or threat and then immediately cut to extrapolation of the impact that change would have on his supporters' daily lives.
They don't care if U.S. liberals, legal immigrants, Europe, the planet, or anyone else suffers. They don't care about our democracy. They DO care if they themselves are in pain due to losing Social Security or Medicare, or paying more for food and gas, or increasing crime, or loss of any other right they take for granted and value...including the rights to free speech and a fair and speedy trial.
No please the media should not make the 2016 mistake of end to end coverage of Trump rallies. If they do so they will only give Trump free publicity and those are the two things he likes the most: publicity and no cost to him. Do not saturate the airwaves with Trump speeches, rants, and the like. The less I hear of Trump the happier I am. Banish this monster from the public domain. Those of us who know him by now do not need to be convinced that he is a narcissist, rapist, liar, thief etc.
It's a tough call - since, frankly, most folks with half a brain can tell from even a snippet of listening to Orange Man that he's both ignorant and whacked-out. This piece reminds me of another Guardian piece from years ago where the author emphasized how much effort journalists put into making him sound cogent when they summarized his rallies. Which makes sense, since you can't have a piece of reporting that just says "Bing bong blump blop whiz boom," and then call it a day.
Michigan has a subscription political newsletter called Gongwer that has always been viewed as straight down the middle. (They need the revenue from both parties to stay afloat.) Here is how they portrayed Trump’s recent appearance in Grand Rapids. “Former President Donald Trump shredded his Democratic opponent's immigration policy Tuesday, calling the nation's southern border a mess that is leading to carnage in Michigan and across the nation at the hands of people in the country illegally.” A lot of us gasped.
I am not sure who the movable voters are or where or how to reach them. I think playing his offensive rants doesn't work because so many people agree with him so they do not find him unwell. But if people are going to play the ridiculous stuff, he says they should provide some context as to what he will do if as President and how that will be the end of democracy.
I think the media needs to focus on his criminal cases. There is so much evidence including the things he has said on camera. I also think it's effective to show his former staffers talking about how he knew he lost the election.
Listened to David Axelrod last night on a podcast and he has come to the same conclusion as you. I also have been critical that the media shines too much light on Trump. But Axelrod thinks people outside Trump’s world really need to know how crazy he is…if you’re not plugged into his world you only get the toned down reporting by the media which makes him look semi-rational. The headline and story you quote are right on. And they are the truth. Perhaps comparing Trumps’ words with other dictators would help. No one thought Hitler really meant what he said. But boy did he. Fear is a strong motivating factor. The left should use it more.
I feel like one potential compromise is airing select full Trump speeches (perhaps his craziest ones, to really drive the point home) but not live. I’d do it on a delay with a full graphics package debunking and annotating the insanity. Ideally there would be clear headed commentary after the speech analyzing what we had all just watched. But I’m not sure who could provide such—the DC based talking heads have proven not up to the task or are considered sufficiently partisan that they would have little impact. What I yearn for is a widely respected national figure like Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite who could show a Trump speech and then just tell it like it is.
The press should print everything he says, BUT in red type print lie, predominantly false, this sentence means, fascist statement, Hitler said exactly the same thing in 1937, American is and has always been great. You know, clarifying remarks.
Yes, it’s time. Yes, fervent Trump supporters will get pumped up even more. And, yes, everyone needs to hear for themselves just what’s on November’s ballot.
McKay Coppins suggested earlier this year that everyone should attend a Trump rally as "an act of civic hygiene":
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/01/trump-rally-iowa-2024-election/677119/
Obviously we won't all do that. But the on-line version of print journalism, which doesn't have space limitations, could do something similar. At least once, reporters could record the entirety of a Trump rally speech (usually an hour or more), have it transcribed, and print it -- every word of it. They wouldn't even need to invest in fact-checking -- just put the whole thing out there for people to see, as they would if they attended the rally themselves.
People who are considering voting for Trump for President should be aware of what they are supporting. This exercise would be a step in that direction: no "bias," no interpretation, no "sanitizing" -- just Trump's own words.
Hi, Margaret—I agree that the remaining “reachable” voters need to repeatedly hear how crazy Trump is, perhaps in a largely unedited, daily news segment that contains the worst of his rants of that day, explicitly without intro commentary, followed by a silent pause to permit the nonsense to be fully appreciated by viewers. Give it a title: “The Daily Rant”.
I think one factor that argues for fuller coverage is the fact that millions of Gen Zers were in middle school when Trump was first elected in 2016. They might need more education about his first term and his philosphy of governing. Repeating what a public figure actually says is not biased. Neither is pointing out when that public figure tells untruths. But that's a pretty daunting task.
The issue seems more complex than a choice between snippets that may suggest cogency and full airing of speeches. The former carries the risks you note. The latter does as well but it is not clear that the public generally would have the time, patience, interest, or contextual knowledge to gauge the extent or depth of the dissonance. I’m not a journalist but I think the hard question here is what’s the middle ground between straightforward reporting and interpretation or description. The Guardian piece is labeled “analysis” which suggests it’s an opinion so some may discount it. Yet if not labeled analysis it could be portrayed by others as biased reporting. I don’t know the answer but perhaps the only course given the stakes is for more outlets to risk those bias accusations and be more direct in describing speeches and remarks in a broader context of interpretation.
Airing full Trump speeches is not a good idea, but showing full sentence or several sentence snippets with some minimal analysis is more than enough context for people to see how damaging this is. I read Rachel Leingang's article the other day and thought it was really good, but I wondered about who will read it.
The real hurdle seems to be reaching the majority of voters who have tuned everything out.
They are going to vote on what they think they know based on low information, disinformation, or misinformation, and tribal emotions.
Yes! But not in real time. Delayed so chyron can point out the disinformation. Then commenters can describe, provide facts, discuss threats, … and start pointing out his obvious cognitive issue.
A concern is that the major print media, that has the benefit of time is normalizing trump as well. They prints ‘both sides ’ headlines and pulls punches on the violent rhetoric, unhinged behaviors and doesn’t call out lies and disinformation for what it is.
I agree: it's time for the media to write and broadcast more of Trump's words. People can excuse a bad sound bite as edited to be biased or as lacking context...whereas a longer segment is harder to dismiss.
That said, I have to repeat my staunch belief that no amount of incoherence, cruelty, or vulgarity on Trump's part is a bridge too far for his supporters. I think the ONLY way for the media to break through the cult's denial is to show Trump as he makes a promise or threat and then immediately cut to extrapolation of the impact that change would have on his supporters' daily lives.
They don't care if U.S. liberals, legal immigrants, Europe, the planet, or anyone else suffers. They don't care about our democracy. They DO care if they themselves are in pain due to losing Social Security or Medicare, or paying more for food and gas, or increasing crime, or loss of any other right they take for granted and value...including the rights to free speech and a fair and speedy trial.
No please the media should not make the 2016 mistake of end to end coverage of Trump rallies. If they do so they will only give Trump free publicity and those are the two things he likes the most: publicity and no cost to him. Do not saturate the airwaves with Trump speeches, rants, and the like. The less I hear of Trump the happier I am. Banish this monster from the public domain. Those of us who know him by now do not need to be convinced that he is a narcissist, rapist, liar, thief etc.
It's a tough call - since, frankly, most folks with half a brain can tell from even a snippet of listening to Orange Man that he's both ignorant and whacked-out. This piece reminds me of another Guardian piece from years ago where the author emphasized how much effort journalists put into making him sound cogent when they summarized his rallies. Which makes sense, since you can't have a piece of reporting that just says "Bing bong blump blop whiz boom," and then call it a day.
Michigan has a subscription political newsletter called Gongwer that has always been viewed as straight down the middle. (They need the revenue from both parties to stay afloat.) Here is how they portrayed Trump’s recent appearance in Grand Rapids. “Former President Donald Trump shredded his Democratic opponent's immigration policy Tuesday, calling the nation's southern border a mess that is leading to carnage in Michigan and across the nation at the hands of people in the country illegally.” A lot of us gasped.
I am not sure who the movable voters are or where or how to reach them. I think playing his offensive rants doesn't work because so many people agree with him so they do not find him unwell. But if people are going to play the ridiculous stuff, he says they should provide some context as to what he will do if as President and how that will be the end of democracy.
I think the media needs to focus on his criminal cases. There is so much evidence including the things he has said on camera. I also think it's effective to show his former staffers talking about how he knew he lost the election.