You know what I mean when I say that the mainstream political media normalizes Donald Trump, right?
I mean that when Trump says something wildly untrue or delusional or incoherent or racist -- or he does something obviously corrupt, illegal, irrational, or brutal -- our most influential political journalists report it stenographically and at best characterize it with weak euphemisms.
They take things that are on their face highly, hugely, tragically abnormal -- like Trump constructing a police state, or threatening war crimes, or trying to take over elections -- and treat them like routine political stories.
No cause for alarm. No reason to declare Trump unwell or unfit. No reason to demand he be removed from office. No reason to take to the streets.
A few examples drawn from the last few weeks:
Trump on Truth Social praises the totalitarian dictator of North Korea and punishes the democratically-elected leader of long-time ally South Korea because the latter opted not to join Trump’s reckless war with Iran. A New York Times “news analysis” casts it as a move by Trump “intended to signal that he wants to resume negotiations” with North Korea. But it is not that. It is, in fact, a spiteful temper-tantrum that gains the U.S. nothing but poses an existential danger to South Korea, undermines our security interests, and rewards truly bad guy Kim Jong-un for his aggressive nuclear policy and his decision to send troops to help Russia in its war with Ukraine.
Trump, talking to Fox News, threatens to “bomb the shit” out of Oman, one of the U.S.’s oldest allies, “if it gets in the way” of negotiations with Iran (which Trump also says are not taking place). The Washington Post relays it with pure stenography, not a word of context or analysis. The New York Times does somewhat better, writing that Trump was lashing out in “frustration at his inability to resolve a war that he started but cannot seem to end.” But it’s more than that. It’s another example of Trump’s disregard for human lives, his rejection of diplomacy in favor of crass, violent threats that he then retracts, and his fundamental unfitness to serve as commander in chief.
Trump is asked if the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln has been deployed too long. Deteriorating conditions on the aircraft carrier have caused serious mental health problems after nine months at sea. He responds “No, no, no, not nearly long enough.” The New York Times calls his remark “the latest to downplay the consequences of his decision to attack Iran.” The Associated Press reports it without characterizing it at all. But to any normal person, that quote is breathtakingly callous and ignoble, especially given that veneration for servicemembers and their sacrifices is considered a key signifier of American patriotism. It validates reports that Trump has privately referred to American war dead as “losers” and “suckers” because he is a sociopath who simply cannot conceive of selflessness.
Trump’s newly confirmed attorney general Todd Blanche refuses to pledge that the Department of Justice will act independently of the White House. The New York Times report does not include a single word about why DOJ independence matters. What the coverage should make clear is that DOJ independence is essential to the rule of law. Having DOJ pick its targets based on political connections is a grave threat to democracy. Nonpartisan career prosecutors, not the White House, should decide who gets investigated and indicted. Blanche is effectively endorsing DOJ harassment of Trump’s enemies.
Trump is asked whether his administration is considering any further intervention in the bond market beyond a failed attempt by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to lower spiking interest rates. “We have many types of intervention,” Trump says. “The ultimate intervention is our military. And if we have to use that, we will.” There are lots of possible reasons Trump would say that, but none of them are normal. So every major print and broadcast news outlet -- even those that quote other parts of Trump’s statement about the bond market -- just ignores it.
I could go on. I could mention the blasé coverage of Trump’s deal to personally profit by selling early access to policy announcements; of a massive new government surveillance scandal (apparently a big bore to most of the media); of the decision to roll back the most significant anti-corruption and money laundering law in decades (you probably didn’t hear about it at all); of Trump calling cities led by Democrats “disgusting”; of Trump cancelling aid to states that didn’t vote for him.
OK, I’ll stop. I think you get it.
Normalization Is Bad Journalism
I’ve spent an enormous amount of time over many years critiquing the mainstream media’s normalization of a truly abnormal political situation. (I started when the Republican Party first lurched off the rails in 2012. I’ve been in overdrive since 2016. It’s one of the main reasons I launched Press Watch in 2019.)
Most recently, I gave lots of examples of how the New York Times uses weasel words to normalize Trump’s illegal abuses of power. And I argued that the distortions news organizations engage in to make Trump seem normal erode trust with their audiences, who know what they see and know it’s not normal.
My focus has been on how normalizing Trump is bad journalism.
It is bad journalism not to tell readers and viewers the truth about how alarming and dangerous Trump administration actions truly are.
It’s bad journalism to understate the extent to which we have become an authoritarian police state. It’s bad journalism to ignore Trump’s incoherence and to sanewash the nutty things he says. It’s bad journalism to cover up just how inept and irrational the entire White House has become. It’s bad journalism to leave outrageous lies unrebutted, and to treat people who consistently spread disinformation as credible sources. It’s bad journalism to pretend that white nationalism is not a key driver of Republican rule. It’s bad journalism not to call out dehumanizing rhetoric. It’s bad journalism to give the president a pass when he insults your female colleagues, and to honor a president who is trying to quash the free press. It’s bad journalism to treat both sides of an argument as if they were equally valid when one is utterly specious.
It’s bad journalism to downplay, cover-up, ignore, euphemize, or at most express mild concern over heinous, racist, corrupt, dangerous, irrational, destructive, inexplicable, and fickle behavior -- simply in order to not appear to be “taking sides” in a partisan conflict.
Normalization Is Also Dangerous for America
But the media normalization of Trump and Trumpism isn’t just bad journalism. It also jeopardizes the future of our country.
If voters do not viscerally grasp the breadth and severity of the problems Trump has caused, they may not understand the urgency and scale of what it will take to fix them.
An insufficiently alarmed public may be skeptical, rather than enthusiastic, about what a post-Trump White House and Congress will need to do in order to repair, reform, and reconstruct all that Trump has damaged or destroyed.
Democratic political leaders won’t have time to waste once they regain power to convince the electorate of the need for radical change. In fact, those leaders already ought to be under constant pressure from the public to quickly effectuate massive policy reversals, clean house of MAGA loyalists, restock government agencies with competent and nonpartisan civil servants, investigate innumerable crimes, restore alliances, rebalance the Supreme Court, and end the war(s). That’s just for starters.
As far as I’m concerned, the United States has been in a state of emergency starting the very first day of Trump’s first presidency, because he was such a clear threat to what I think of as core American values.
And now look at us: Senseless unwinnable war, perilous challenges to our democracy, vast corruption, masked federal agents spreading terror on our streets, ruptured alliances, constant bullying threats, constant walk-backs of those threats, wildly accelerated income inequality, hastened climate change, desecrated sacred places, Trump’s face glowering from public buildings.
So, if you ask me, the central mission of political journalism right now should be to make sure that most Americans -- the overwhelming majority of whom I still believe care about facts, about their neighbors, about their country, and about their planet -- understand at gut level the need for emergency action once he is gone.
How Not to Normalize What Trump Says
How can journalists stop normalizing Trump? My advice to political reporters is this: Next time you feel you need to tell your audience about something Trump said or did, stop and ask yourself: What does your audience need to understand about it? Is there some essential context? Should they be skeptical? Should they be alarmed?
When you report on something, you are presumptively granting it credibility -- why else would you be telling people about it? -- unless you explicitly warn your audience otherwise.
So if what he said is an obvious lie, your audience need to understand that they shouldn’t believe it. (Your job is not to be a vector for disinformation!) Maybe the first thing they need to know is the truth. (See: the “Truth Sandwich”.) So you explain: X is a fact, but Trump says Y; or Despite evidence of X, Trump claims Y.
If what he said sounds pretty unlikely, but you don’t know for sure, give your audience enough information to be properly skeptical: Trump asserted X, but has no evidence to support his view. Or: Trump made the unsubstantiated assertion that X. Or: Trump, who often confuses wishful thinking with reality, claimed X. Or: Trump, who has a long history of false claims about X, asserted Y.
Maybe you need to take a step back and put what he said in context before you quote him: Trump, who has long wanted X, asserted Y. Or: Trump adopted X rhetoric when he said Y. Or: Trump, frustrated by X, insists Y.
Unless it’s a clearly factual statement with publicly available supporting evidence, don’t go with the “Trump said X” headline -- please! At the very least go with Trump claimed, and very quickly give some background about Trump’s veracity or credibility on the topic.
When he’s incoherent, don’t just cherry-pick the coherent parts. When you quote him, do so at some length, in a way that captures how he said what he said. Be blunt: In rambling and sometimes incoherent remarks, Trump said X. Describe what you observed: Trump chose to address X, but instead of doing so with clarity made repeated false assertions, got lost talking about Y, couldn’t answer a question about Z, and displayed apparent ignorance about A. What emerged from all that was B.
When he says something beyond the pale, acknowledge that: Using words that in ordinary times and from any other president would prompt a public outcry and widespread demands for a retraction, Trump said X.
Specifically, when he says something crass, misogynistic, insulting, dehumanizing, or racist, describe it with the proper and accurate adjective. And state the obvious: Trump said X, the kind of statement that in normal times would require an apology. Or: In a statement offensive to X, Trump said Y. Or: Forsaking civility, Trump called X a Y.
When he threatens to do something, you absolutely need to warn your audience right away that he may not really mean it and that it may not happen. He has repeatedly backed down from his threats, adding to his already enormous credibility problem. So: Trump, who has previously made and retracted similar threats, said X. Or: Trump, who has a history of issuing hyperbolic threats before backing down, said X. Sometimes, he’s just blowing off steam: Trump, known for his volatility, suddenly threatens X.
If what he’s threatening is obviously or even potentially a war crime, you know what to do: Use the words “war crime” early and often. Explain the laws of war. Explain why they exist. Discuss the possible toll. Explain that threatening to commit war crimes is incongruous with being a moral leader. So: It is generally considered a war crime to do X, but Trump proposed to do exactly that.
And here’s something you could write almost every day: Trump said X, which before his emergence on the public stage would have been considered impeachable, or would have made someone presumptively unelectable.
How Not to Normalize What Trump Does
A lot of the options for when he says something also apply to when he does something.
But it’s even more important when he does something abnormal to situate it relative to normality. Would a normal president do this? Does it look like a normal response to the situation? Was his explanation normal? Did he follow normal procedures to arrive at his decision?
When reporting that he has done something abnormal, make that clear by prefacing it with: Defying established practice; or Shattering highly regarded norms; or Violating long-prized conventions; or Shocking experts. Try: Presidents have always done X until now, but Trump did Y.
Help your audience understand what category of abnormal it falls into. Is he being irrational? Delusional? Retributive? Narcissistic? Oblivious? His reasoning a mystery, Trump does X, or Citing a disproven conspiracy theory, or Trump does Y; or Exacting revenge on X, Trump does Y; or Aggrandizing himself, Trump does X; or Disregarding obvious risk of X, Trump does Y.
Mention other things Trump has done that have amply demonstrated his contempt not just for norms, but for laws and for the Constitution: Trump’s track record of abnormality includes blatantly ignoring congressional mandates, subjecting his political opponents to criminal investigations, cutting off funds to states that didn’t vote for him, sending masked federal agents into blue cities, and putting soldiers on the streets of Washington, D.C.
Then there is Trump’s staggering corruption. When he does something self-evidently corrupt, explain to your audience right away that X kind of corruption has historically been forbidden by White House ethics guidelines, or has historically resulted in prosecution under Y law. Then you can say that Trump did Z anyway. State clearly that his self-dealing is so extreme that no previous president has ever done anything remotely like it.
When he does other things that common sense tells you are obviously illegal, it’s a disservice to your audience to pretend you don’t realize that. Try: Trump did X, despite law that forbids it; or X is illegal, but Trump did Y anyway; Or Trump did X, which appears to run afoul of Y laws.
Perhaps more than anything else, journalists have a special obligation to alert their audience to how profoundly and dangerously abnormal it is for the president of the United States to pose such a threat to democracy. That’s especially the case when Trump takes steps to overhaul, undermine, destabilize, and interfere with the election process.
Be blunt about his extreme, anti-democratic goals: Trump, whose goal is to disenfranchise enough Democrats that the Republican Party will be unchallenged for the foreseeable future. Aggressively rebut the Big Lie Trump uses to legitimize pushing for more barriers to voting: Trump, whose claims about voter fraud are transparently false and demagogic.
The public constantly needs to be reminded that Trump has already violated the most sacred democratic principle there is: that you accept the results of an election. Use clauses like this often: Trump, who attempted to steal the 2020 election or Trump, who led an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to overturn his election loss.
A Lot to Ask
I realize this is a lot to ask from the elite political journalists who have spent much of the last decade looking down at those of us urging them to stop normalizing Trump.
The leaders of our top newsrooms have created a corporate culture that values remaining above the fray -- without any kind of agenda, never “taking sides” on any political issue. (With the notable exception of punching left and mocking wokeness.)
They have stated that raising the alarm is not their job. They call us shrill partisans who are out to destroy the core values of journalism.
But there is nothing normal about what is going on in our country right now, nothing normal about Donald Trump, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Instead of hiding the news behind a veneer of impartiality, our political journalists should be warning the public about Trumpism every day, day in and day out.
And that’s not just telling the truth. That’s preparing the public for what we desperately need: A period of rapid, transformative change in which not only is Trumpism erased, but we create something new and better to take its place.
One of the most mind-bending bits of reporting is when they report that "President Trump said XYZ using an expletive."
So, they are loath to quote Trump's actual expletive because they might be sanctioned by Trump's FCC -- for quoting him?
That's nuts.
This is how you fix journalism, for sure. I'm less sure about how you fix billionaire outlet owners to whom democracy is poison for their aspirations.