The three phases of normalizing Trump's attack on Harris in Wisconsin

The media did what it always does, and it's not good enough

1. The use of neutral language. If you merely read about Donald Trump’s deeply offensive rally this weekend in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, you probably thought it was about immigration. And about Trump up to his usual tricks of disparaging his rivals.

Here the lead of the report from Axios, for example:

“Former President Trump, in a self-described ‘dark speech,’ told a rally in Wisconsin yesterday that his opponent, Vice President Harris, is “mentally impaired’ and “mentally disabled.’”

Donald Trump described Kamala Harris as “mentally impaired” during a during a racist, misogynistic screed at a rally on Sept. 28, 2024 in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. / Getty Images

Axios, which favors bullet points and boldface help for the tuned-out, let us know “Why It Matters”: “Even for Trump, it was weird, nasty and nonsensical — when he needed to be swaying ‘national security moms’ and other undecideds.”

Or here’s the top paragraph of the Washington Post report: “Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump criticized Vice President Harris’s mental capacity Saturday, falsely claiming she was born ‘mentally impaired’ and comparing her actions to that of a ‘mentally disabled person.’ The remarks prompted criticism from advocates for people with disabilities.”

Here’s the Associated Press’s headline: “Trump lists his grievances in a Wisconsin speech intended to link Harris to illegal immigration.”

But if you watched the speech, or even snippets of it, you saw something quite different — an absolutely ugly and brutal attack on Kamala Harris, full of lies and racist misogyny. In case you missed it, watch a bit of it here.

Somehow, “the remarks prompted criticism from advocates for people with disabilities” just does not get the job done. Nor does “lists his grievances.”

Nor does Bloomberg’s news alert: “Donald Trump sharpened his criticism on border security in a swing-state visit, playing up a political vulnerability for Kamala Harris.” Is that really what happened here?

2. The lack of substantial followup. Once the outrageous rally was over, and the stories with their neutral language written, the political media was ready — more than ready — to move on. The media does know how to follow up, as you may recall from, for instance, President Biden’s bad debate this summer. But in the case of Trump’s unhinged and ugly attack on Harris’s intelligence, the spot-news coverage was about it. I did not see countless outraged opinion pieces; I did not see days of stories examining every aspect of this. It was just, cover the speech and let’s get out of here.

3. The pivot to safety. Like waves rushing to the shore, the media relentlessly returns to the familiar. The thinking seems to go something like this: Whew, that was a pretty crazy rally, but let’s leave that behind and get back to what we’re good at. When in doubt, cover the horserace. One thing I did see after Saturday’s rally were many, many, many stories about polls. A New York Times headline Sunday rendered it this way: “Harris and Trump are Neck and Neck in Michigan and Wisconsin, Polls Find.” And that’s about as horserace-oriented as it gets.

   ---

   ---

I used to think that Trump’s rallies and speeches should not be shown live because that only gave him a media megaphone for his propaganda. I believed, and often wrote, that such coverage should only come later, accompanied by plenty of fact-checking and context. But I’m not so sure any more. Maybe, in order to get across how unhinged and offensive this really is, it needs to be seen in its full live form, complete with the red-capped faithful cheering on his every ugly insult.

One thing I’m sure of is that the current politics coverage is really not getting the job done

Members of Media and Democracy Project joined Rise and Resist's protest outside the New York Times offices in Manhattan on September 18th, 2024 / Provided

Giving credit where due: I was impressed by a Trump investigation that led the New York Times Sunday print edition, an extensive investigation into his “pursuit of retribution” while in office — how he deployed the powers of the presidency against 10 individuals. Reporter Michael Schmidt clearly spent months on this deep dive, which covers more than two inside pages.

Readers, are you looking forward to tomorrow’s debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance? I hope that America’s dad prevails against the smarmy guy with such strange feelings about cats, given his lies about immigrants eating them and his rants about miserable women who live with them.

Thank you very much for subscribing. I’m appreciative of having you along on this wild ride to November 5, and beyond, and I read all your comments with great interest.

Let me know your thoughts on current media coverage, and, particularly, what you think about CBS News’s decision not to fact-check the vice presidential candidates in real time. After seeing ABC’s David Muir and Linsey Davis do it effectively in the presidential debate, I find it not only disappointing but unworthy of the network of the late Walter Cronkite, who at one time was known as the most trusted man in America.