I have a minor correction with respect to the criticism of Time over this Trumpstatement:
"TRUMP: I've watched in Portland and I watched in Seattle, and I've watched in Minneapolis, Minnesota and other places. People do heinous acts, far more serious than what took place on Jan. 6. And nothing happened to these people." and the claim of this post that
"Nothing they did was nearly as heinous as attacking the United States Congress and the police officers defending it."
It is a lie that "nothing happened to these people [who committed acts during the BLM protests."
It's also true that *more* heinous crimes were committed during the BLM protests---they just were not for the most part committed by protesters.
He tells such lies because FOX news and the rest of RW media rarely if ever call him on them; or instead throw him softballs.
FOX and its lesser imitators supply nearly half of America's voters with news--a huge media market worth many billions of dollars in annual revenue. Mainstream Media owners/management delude themselves that they can reclaim some/most of this market share by refraining from antagonizing conservative media darlings like Trump. MSM outlets thus enforce this week-kneed ethos on their reporting and editorial staff; firing or outing any who might jeopardize the gravy train.
Disney-ABC bent the knee to Trump. Comcast-NBC is destroying two of the better news channels, CNBC and MSNBC in hopes of placating him. CBS has just finished wrecking 60 Minutes and seems to be in the process of submitting to Trump. CNN got rid of its most alert journalist and has tried to muffle its fact-checker.
Every one of those networks is complicit in the destruction of the American Republic. It is, shockingly, the Murdoch WSJ that has found its voice.
The November Ipsos poll found that 85% of likely GOP voters get some/most/all of their news from FOX News. That's 85%!
And of those 85%, a whopping 80% believed that the "Biden economy" was *already* in recession, that crime and unemployment were at all-time highs--instead of near all-time lows. Those conservative media consumers swallowed this nonsense, and then voted accordingly. Based on easily disprovable untruths.
And that's before you get into the weeds on the weird stuff, like that Dems murder (abort) babies *after* birth, or that Haitian immigrants were eating peoples dogs and cats. Donald Trump made BOTH of these latter claims on national television! And he made them because FOX and RW media had already been circulating them.
FOX News is the ringleader. But Sinclair, AONN, Newsmax, etc. run most of the same alternative facts hogwash. That collectively has created an alternative facts reality for conservative America.
I'm not disagreeing on the toxic power of Fox (and OANN and Newsmax), Nubby. You're right on that.
But ask yourself why, if viewership of *non*-right-wing-nut-o-sphere channels is much, much higher why it does not have a detoxifying effect?
It's obviously a question with more than one answer. The general population has never gotten over the racism, sexism, and xenophobia that have been with us since the founding; it wants to believe what Fox is selling. The Democratic opposition has been timid, and unwilling to build a counter-media; partisan media was the norm in this country for most of its early years. Journalism has lost its sense of mission, instead trying to placate the loudest voices and entertain rather than inform.
But the at the center of all of these phenomena is corporate media, which has been giving in to right-wing authoritarianism, more and more, since the Westmoreland case of the early 1980s. Fox can only succeed at disinforming us because the rest of the press is too cowed to fight back.
You make some fair points. Yes, the MSM is still rather...antiquated in its establishmentarianism; as well as following--rather than rebutting--key FOX News ledes. Like the "Biden economy (inflation) is terrible," rather than running pieces on how much worse inflation was in every single *other* country post-Covid. By EU standards, our MSM is slightly Right of center; which inures US media consumers to how far-right FOX News really is.
I grew up in the '60's, and seeing rebuttals--even weak ones--to any OpEd angle was normal. And fair. Or at least fair-ish. But Reagan's ending of the Fairness Doctrine was a crucial turning point that opened the door to lying-as-a-business-practice on the Right. Coupled with our weak libel laws, the result has ben an accelerating explosion of facts-free propaganda--most of it from the Right--that is corrosive to a democratic form of government.
A "Truth in Journalism" law is now essential. Something that requires news to be separate from opinion--like in most print journalism--but in all forms of media. And that requires news to use actual journalistic practices, like 2+ sources, links to *actual* studies, etc. With severe financial penalties for any lying that's not "honest mistake."
The GOP would fight any such restriction tooth and nail. But the next time Dems are in power, they need to make this a priority.
The problem with legislating "truth in journalism" is that it puts the government in the place of defining truth. That's quite dangerous.
There are four things that I believe would accomplish what you want better:
1) increase the number and variety of news outlets by enforcing the anti-trust laws
2) increase the power of the news consumer by giving everyone a few hundred dollars per year to buy the news of their choice
3) strengthen the institutions that establish what is true, especially the courts and universities--and journalism; weaken propagandistic institutions like Heritage by limiting the tax exemption to benefit only lower-income taxpayers.
4) public funding of elections, absolutely excluding outside money during the last month or so of an election.
Funny (rhetorically speaking) how we’re supposed to know he was kidding about Day One but we’re supposed to take him seriously about riots on every college campus in the country.
One other question that sort of applies to all these topics: If everyone misunderstands everything you say, have you ever considered speaking differently? Or is it always someone else’s responsibility to understand you?
And of course, when he says someone has done something “illegal,” the immediate response should be “What actual law are you saying they broke?”
And stop asking yes/no questions. Ask questions that require an explanation.
I've had the thought for a long time that reporters don't ask Trump certain questions or direct follow-up questions (or avoid complex questions) because they know he's an idiot and they don't want to embarrass him. I'm curious what Dan thinks of this.
You are 100% right about what TIME should have said, but let's be real, saying any of those things would have prompted even more lies. Then it would have been incumbent on TIME to follow up and hammer a question until it was answered...or until he stormed out. Trump is unfit, unhealthy, obviously deep into dementia, and being coddled at every turn not only by his sycophants, but by the corporate media as well.
It's almost impossible to understand how experienced, trained journalists can fail to call out (in real time) the blatant lies of this mentally disturbed, physically unwell, convicted criminal, rapist and colossal failure. He's destroying their country too and damaging the future for their children and generations to come. If you don't have the courage to practice real journalism and confront the truth, you should give a pass. These farcical interviews only do harm.
Dan is absolutely right. The biggest problem is journalists' inability to ask good questions, particularly followups and followups on followups. I'm going to go a little deeper on one question and answer.
TIME: You said you would end the war in Ukraine on Day One.
TRUMP: Well, I said that figuratively, and I said that as an exaggeration, because to make a point, and you know, it gets, of course, by the fake news [unintelligible]. Obviously, people know that when I said that, it was said in jest, but it was also said that it will be ended.
WHAT I WOULD HAVE ASKED: Even if what you said was indeed in jest and people knew that, you just said you were making a point. What was the point you were making? It is that ending the war in Ukraine would be easy? Is that what you meant? Do you still think it's easy? If you do, why haven't you been able to accomplish it? If not, what didn't you understand about the dynamics of the war that have led the war to be going on 100 days after you said it would be over?
I would of course let him answer each of these questions separately, which might lead to other questions. The bottom line is that journalists need to at least act as if he's a real president who can be held accountable not just for the spirit of what he says but what it means in terms of actions in the real world. If that means hanging with a question through multiple questions and answers, so be it. I'm not saying Trump can do that -- he can't -- but we, as journalists, as citizens, need to act as if we inhabit a world where what matters is actions, not just ethos. We let, nay encourage, Trump to be nothing but a performative presence as the world crumbles around us.
Dan, it's a good idea to challenge Trump on his lies, but he lies just to stay in shape. As kids, we'd joke "You lie like a rug." It's his nature. The air he breathes. So, yes, challenge him, but don't expect the truth--ever.
Excellent column. Because the fpotus is incapable of telling the truth, interviewers who are not propaganda pawns must push back on the lies, in real-time, to be taken seriously. I think cowardly interviewers do not do that because they are afraid of his retribution, and tirades against the truth tellers. Therefore, they're not journalists, they are stenographers. And cowards. Cowards do not stop fascism.
I know there is one journalist he would never sit down with to be questioned, and that is Medhi Hasan, a guy who literally wrote the book on how to win an argument. Well, actually two journalists. The other would be you, Dan.
I have a minor correction with respect to the criticism of Time over this Trumpstatement:
"TRUMP: I've watched in Portland and I watched in Seattle, and I've watched in Minneapolis, Minnesota and other places. People do heinous acts, far more serious than what took place on Jan. 6. And nothing happened to these people." and the claim of this post that
"Nothing they did was nearly as heinous as attacking the United States Congress and the police officers defending it."
It is a lie that "nothing happened to these people [who committed acts during the BLM protests."
It's also true that *more* heinous crimes were committed during the BLM protests---they just were not for the most part committed by protesters.
1. A law enforcement officer was assassinated by a member of the Boogaloo Bois, Steve Carrillo. (www.courthousenews.com/judge-sentences-boogaloo-extremist-to-41-years-for-killing-federal-officer/)
2. Stephan Cannon, a looter unaffiliated with the BLM protests, murdered a St. Louis police captain, David Dorn, during a burglary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_David_Dorn)
3. Among the people who set fire to a Minneapolis police station was Harrison Hunter, a member of the Boogaloo Bois, who also fired into the police station while people were inside (https://www.police1.com/george-floyd-protest/articles/man-sentenced-to-4-years-for-minneapolis-police-station-fire-nKd5RboPPFKRy53f/)
All of these murders or attempted murders were more heinous than what happened at the Capitol. As for the rest of trump's claims, what is remarkable is that with something like 20 million people (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/americans-continue-to-protest-for-racial-justice-60-years-after-the-march-on-washington/) protesting over the course of a year, there were only somewhat more than 300 federal arrests and 286 persons actually charged (https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748). More were charged locally for less serious crimes.
At the Capitol, several thousand people managed to commit over 1000 federal crimes over the course of a few hours, with 174 involving deadly weapons (https://www.jan-6.com/post/doj-releases-updated-statistics-on-charges-guilty-pleas-convictions-sentencing-in-the-january-6t) and 608 charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding police officers.
That Trump is able to continue to tell such monstrous lies is, as this column suggests, only possible because journalists fail to do their job.
He tells such lies because FOX news and the rest of RW media rarely if ever call him on them; or instead throw him softballs.
FOX and its lesser imitators supply nearly half of America's voters with news--a huge media market worth many billions of dollars in annual revenue. Mainstream Media owners/management delude themselves that they can reclaim some/most of this market share by refraining from antagonizing conservative media darlings like Trump. MSM outlets thus enforce this week-kneed ethos on their reporting and editorial staff; firing or outing any who might jeopardize the gravy train.
Fox has 3 million viewers. ABC, NBC, and CBS have over 10 million viewers, CNN has over half a million more, and MSNBC has 1.3M. https://www.tvinsider.com/1181732/fox-news-ratings-primetime-nbc-abc-cbs-trump/
We cannot continue to blame the right-wingnut-o-sphere alone for why Americans are so badly informed. Sure, they often seed and feed the lies. But the rest of the media is not doing its job in making it clear to the American public that Fox (and Newsmax) are networks that deliberately lied to their viewers over a period of many, many months to the point that they had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/09/26/smartmatic-goes-to-trial-against-newsmax-today-heres-where-it-and-dominions-other-lawsuits-stand/).
Disney-ABC bent the knee to Trump. Comcast-NBC is destroying two of the better news channels, CNBC and MSNBC in hopes of placating him. CBS has just finished wrecking 60 Minutes and seems to be in the process of submitting to Trump. CNN got rid of its most alert journalist and has tried to muffle its fact-checker.
Every one of those networks is complicit in the destruction of the American Republic. It is, shockingly, the Murdoch WSJ that has found its voice.
The November Ipsos poll found that 85% of likely GOP voters get some/most/all of their news from FOX News. That's 85%!
And of those 85%, a whopping 80% believed that the "Biden economy" was *already* in recession, that crime and unemployment were at all-time highs--instead of near all-time lows. Those conservative media consumers swallowed this nonsense, and then voted accordingly. Based on easily disprovable untruths.
And that's before you get into the weeds on the weird stuff, like that Dems murder (abort) babies *after* birth, or that Haitian immigrants were eating peoples dogs and cats. Donald Trump made BOTH of these latter claims on national television! And he made them because FOX and RW media had already been circulating them.
FOX News is the ringleader. But Sinclair, AONN, Newsmax, etc. run most of the same alternative facts hogwash. That collectively has created an alternative facts reality for conservative America.
I'm not disagreeing on the toxic power of Fox (and OANN and Newsmax), Nubby. You're right on that.
But ask yourself why, if viewership of *non*-right-wing-nut-o-sphere channels is much, much higher why it does not have a detoxifying effect?
It's obviously a question with more than one answer. The general population has never gotten over the racism, sexism, and xenophobia that have been with us since the founding; it wants to believe what Fox is selling. The Democratic opposition has been timid, and unwilling to build a counter-media; partisan media was the norm in this country for most of its early years. Journalism has lost its sense of mission, instead trying to placate the loudest voices and entertain rather than inform.
But the at the center of all of these phenomena is corporate media, which has been giving in to right-wing authoritarianism, more and more, since the Westmoreland case of the early 1980s. Fox can only succeed at disinforming us because the rest of the press is too cowed to fight back.
You make some fair points. Yes, the MSM is still rather...antiquated in its establishmentarianism; as well as following--rather than rebutting--key FOX News ledes. Like the "Biden economy (inflation) is terrible," rather than running pieces on how much worse inflation was in every single *other* country post-Covid. By EU standards, our MSM is slightly Right of center; which inures US media consumers to how far-right FOX News really is.
I grew up in the '60's, and seeing rebuttals--even weak ones--to any OpEd angle was normal. And fair. Or at least fair-ish. But Reagan's ending of the Fairness Doctrine was a crucial turning point that opened the door to lying-as-a-business-practice on the Right. Coupled with our weak libel laws, the result has ben an accelerating explosion of facts-free propaganda--most of it from the Right--that is corrosive to a democratic form of government.
A "Truth in Journalism" law is now essential. Something that requires news to be separate from opinion--like in most print journalism--but in all forms of media. And that requires news to use actual journalistic practices, like 2+ sources, links to *actual* studies, etc. With severe financial penalties for any lying that's not "honest mistake."
The GOP would fight any such restriction tooth and nail. But the next time Dems are in power, they need to make this a priority.
The problem with legislating "truth in journalism" is that it puts the government in the place of defining truth. That's quite dangerous.
There are four things that I believe would accomplish what you want better:
1) increase the number and variety of news outlets by enforcing the anti-trust laws
2) increase the power of the news consumer by giving everyone a few hundred dollars per year to buy the news of their choice
3) strengthen the institutions that establish what is true, especially the courts and universities--and journalism; weaken propagandistic institutions like Heritage by limiting the tax exemption to benefit only lower-income taxpayers.
4) public funding of elections, absolutely excluding outside money during the last month or so of an election.
Funny (rhetorically speaking) how we’re supposed to know he was kidding about Day One but we’re supposed to take him seriously about riots on every college campus in the country.
One other question that sort of applies to all these topics: If everyone misunderstands everything you say, have you ever considered speaking differently? Or is it always someone else’s responsibility to understand you?
And of course, when he says someone has done something “illegal,” the immediate response should be “What actual law are you saying they broke?”
Blunt, follow-up questions are a lost art.
And stop asking yes/no questions. Ask questions that require an explanation.
I've had the thought for a long time that reporters don't ask Trump certain questions or direct follow-up questions (or avoid complex questions) because they know he's an idiot and they don't want to embarrass him. I'm curious what Dan thinks of this.
You are 100% right about what TIME should have said, but let's be real, saying any of those things would have prompted even more lies. Then it would have been incumbent on TIME to follow up and hammer a question until it was answered...or until he stormed out. Trump is unfit, unhealthy, obviously deep into dementia, and being coddled at every turn not only by his sycophants, but by the corporate media as well.
So well put, Dan. Thank you!
It's almost impossible to understand how experienced, trained journalists can fail to call out (in real time) the blatant lies of this mentally disturbed, physically unwell, convicted criminal, rapist and colossal failure. He's destroying their country too and damaging the future for their children and generations to come. If you don't have the courage to practice real journalism and confront the truth, you should give a pass. These farcical interviews only do harm.
Dan is absolutely right. The biggest problem is journalists' inability to ask good questions, particularly followups and followups on followups. I'm going to go a little deeper on one question and answer.
TIME: You said you would end the war in Ukraine on Day One.
TRUMP: Well, I said that figuratively, and I said that as an exaggeration, because to make a point, and you know, it gets, of course, by the fake news [unintelligible]. Obviously, people know that when I said that, it was said in jest, but it was also said that it will be ended.
WHAT I WOULD HAVE ASKED: Even if what you said was indeed in jest and people knew that, you just said you were making a point. What was the point you were making? It is that ending the war in Ukraine would be easy? Is that what you meant? Do you still think it's easy? If you do, why haven't you been able to accomplish it? If not, what didn't you understand about the dynamics of the war that have led the war to be going on 100 days after you said it would be over?
I would of course let him answer each of these questions separately, which might lead to other questions. The bottom line is that journalists need to at least act as if he's a real president who can be held accountable not just for the spirit of what he says but what it means in terms of actions in the real world. If that means hanging with a question through multiple questions and answers, so be it. I'm not saying Trump can do that -- he can't -- but we, as journalists, as citizens, need to act as if we inhabit a world where what matters is actions, not just ethos. We let, nay encourage, Trump to be nothing but a performative presence as the world crumbles around us.
Dan, it's a good idea to challenge Trump on his lies, but he lies just to stay in shape. As kids, we'd joke "You lie like a rug." It's his nature. The air he breathes. So, yes, challenge him, but don't expect the truth--ever.
Excellent column. Because the fpotus is incapable of telling the truth, interviewers who are not propaganda pawns must push back on the lies, in real-time, to be taken seriously. I think cowardly interviewers do not do that because they are afraid of his retribution, and tirades against the truth tellers. Therefore, they're not journalists, they are stenographers. And cowards. Cowards do not stop fascism.
I know there is one journalist he would never sit down with to be questioned, and that is Medhi Hasan, a guy who literally wrote the book on how to win an argument. Well, actually two journalists. The other would be you, Dan.