Lies, false equivalence and other media failures in the aftermath of Trump's trial
The felon now claims he never said "lock her up" — and other pieces of post-verdict nonsense
Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland has quoted his father, the political activist Marcus Raskin, about the relationship between truth and democracy.
A few lie-filled days after Donald Trump’s conviction, it’s worth remembering the elder Raskin’s words:
“Democracy needs a ground to stand upon — and that ground is the truth.”
In other words, we can’t govern ourselves if we can’t agree on basic facts. The news media should play a positive role in this equation, but it often doesn’t. In fact, it often does the opposite.
Right-wing media, led by Fox News, often hands its megaphone over to liars and fails to fact-check or correct them. These days — post-verdict — things are even worse than usual. Matt Gertz of Media Matters, the progressive media-watchdog group, told me Monday what he’s seeing on Fox: “A very high level of vitriol and rage,” and “rampant calls for retaliation.” He and his colleague John Whitehouse detail that here.
Mainstream media has its own brand of failing us, not so much with lies but with its endless service to false equivalence in politics coverage and the frequent reluctance to live up to their mission. (Where are the newspaper editorials demanding that Trump should end his campaign?)
Five examples, some clearly much worse than others, and then some advice.
Trump, in the aftermath of the last week’s verdict, on Fox & Friends, talking about Hillary Clinton: “I didn’t say ‘lock her up.’” That, he claimed, was just other people. But of course, this is absurd. Trump’s rallies in the 2016 campaign rang with that chant, and Trump himself definitely got on board, either by constantly railing about “Crooked Hillary,” or sometimes using the exact words and saying she needed to go to jail. Aaron Rupar had the receipts, as you can see here. Of course, the ever-enabling Fox hosts couldn’t have been more obsequious and less challenging of his absurd lie.
The notion, spread far and wide, that Trump’s 34 felony convictions will actually help him with voters. You could hear this in nearly every form of media, parroted by his allies and given plenty of ink and airtime. Even New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd gave it some exposure in her weekend column, quoting her Republican sister: “I wasn’t going to vote for Trump … but now I am because I thought this whole thing was a sham.” But common sense — and post-verdict polls — suggest otherwise. In a Morning Consult poll, 49 percent of independent voters think Trump should drop out of the presidential race altogether, and a majority of registered voters approved of the guilty verdict. There’s far too little pushback against the wacky idea that the verdict helps Trump by making him into a martyr.
Everybody likes to complain about New York Times headlines, and I generally don’t go that route. But one over the weekend seemed ridiculous — and simply wrong — enough to include here: “Trump Verdict Confirms How Far the Former Master of New York City Has Fallen.” Fact-check: Trump was never the master of New York City. He was a mostly failed businessman and a tabloid laughingstock. Every New Yorker (except possibly this Times headline writer) knows it. The headline was later changed online to refer to New York as “Trump’s Playground,” but not before former Chicago Tribune editor and media critic Mark Jacob observed how embarrassing it is when a news organization shows complete ignorance about its own city.
Similarly, this sub-headline in the Washington Post over an article by the paper’s marquee analysis writer Dan Balz: “Voters will have to decide whether Biden or Trump poses the bigger threat to the future of the country.” That is the very definition of false equivalence. The headline also was later changed, possibly because of complaints or just a brief visitation to the land of common sense.
Of course, it almost goes without saying that Trump’s remarks, immediately following the verdict, were a cascade of lies, exaggerations, accusations and misinformation. The question is how did the media respond? CNN’s excellent fact-checker, Daniel Dale, took us through them, as you can see here. Should the cable networks have aired as much of this screed as they did? (CNN and MSNBC both cut away mid-speech to go to commentary and fact checks; Fox aired the whole thing and then the anchors helpfully repeated his claims.) Given the highly unusual moment, it was probably right to give him significant airtime. But in general, I’m not in favor of large doses of Trump being blasted out live and unfiltered. The lies actually do damage and fact checking isn’t a complete antidote.
What are those who care about truth and democracy to do in this moment? At least this: Choose your media sources wisely, compare and contrast, resist the temptation to share information you’re not sure of, and stay tuned in. Remember that some of this tumult is meant to mislead you, sow chaos and cause you to give up on truth. As the great philosopher and social critic Hannah Arendt warned: “A people that can no longer believe anything … is deprived not only of the capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.”
Thanks very much to all subscribers to American Crisis. Thank you, particularly, for caring about issues of democracy and truth. Let me know in the comments here or on social media how you have reacted to the Trump verdict, and how you think it will affect people’s votes in November. It is shaping up as the most consequential election in modern American history. The stakes are high.
A few people here have asked my view of the turmoil at the Washington Post, since I was the media columnist there from 2016 to 2022. Here's my new piece in the Guardian on that, and thanks for your interest.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/04/washington-post-sally-buzbee-will-lewis
Trump's day-after conviction "press conference," which is how some media referred to it despite the fact he took no questions, was rambling, vengeful, and alarming in its incoherence. Yet, it was left to late-night television hosts to show just how bananas it was. Why? I understand the media needed to cover his response to the verdicts, but where were the analysts and editorialists? Were they not concerned by Trump's unhinged performance?