It’s not as though he has ever tried to disguise his strategy. It was almost 40 years ago that Donald Trump said: “If you are a little different, or a little outrageous… the press is going to write about you.” He has been consistently outrageous ever since – and the press has consistently covered him.
But this election has been slightly different. Cowed by criticism of their role in the 2016 campaign, many US news outfits have reduced the wall-to-wall coverage they afforded Trump previously and tempered their reporting – only to stand accused of a whole new set of failings. Chief among them is “sanewashing”, the idea that Trump’s rhetoric and behaviour is being toned down or neutralised. The political scientist Brian Klaas calls it “the banality of crazy”, as journalists, numbed by the awfulness of Trump’s words, fail to represent them to the public. Then there’s “bothsiderism”, the curse where reporters attempting to be objective fall into a mire of false equivalences. The truth, amid an ocean of fake news, is that a decade on from Trump’s first hint he might stand to be president, the media is still no closer to knowing how best to deal with him.
Clearly, 2016 was a disaster for journalism. Although not a disaster for the Trump-backing Fox News, which that year reported a profit of $1.67bn. Or at CNN, which treated the presidential candidate as pure entertainment, screening full-length rallies and enjoying its best year in its history with a $1bn profit. Or even at the Trump-baiting New York Times, which added more than a quarter of a million subscribers in the final quarter of 2016. Trump was clickbait for the internet and Viagra for TV viewing figures previously struggling to raise interest in politics. But despite millions of column inches and hours of air time, the media failed to treat Trump as anything more than a villainous vaudeville act. Barack Obama criticised media failings, saying the job of a reporter was “more than just handing someone a microphone”.
After Trump’s presidency and the 6 January insurrection it seemed there would be a different approach in 2024. Accepted wisdom was that his attention-seeking antics were best ignored. But as a result, much of the US, reliant on traditional media to give them a top line on any news event, has not seen the raw Trump at recent rallies: incoherent, meandering, racist. Instead, they’re getting a sanitised version.
At a Wisconsin rally last month, Trump ranted about illegal immigrants, saying: “They will walk into your kitchen, they’ll cut your throat.” The New Republic’s Michael Tomasky wrote of his surprise that the quote wasn’t reported in the New York Times or Washington Post. The Times simply wrote Trump had “vilified undocumented immigrants”, which seems a long way from Trump’s emotionally charged language. “Trump constantly saying extreme, racist violent stuff can’t always be new,” wrote Tomasky. “But it is always reality. Is the press justified in ignoring reality just because it isn’t new?”
Parker Molloy, the US writer who publishes The Present Age blog on Substack, agrees: “This sanewashing of Trump’s statements isn’t just poor journalism; it’s a form of misinformation that poses a threat to democracy. By laundering Trump’s words in this fashion, the media is actively participating in the erosion of our shared reality.”
There has, of course, also been some excellent reporting from the New York Times, Washington Post and others who have covered Trump’s scandals, fact-checked his claims, and contextualised the risk he poses. But how much of that content can media outlets produce without falling into the Trump-trap in which he paints himself as lone cowboy under fire from a hysterical, “fake news” left-wing media?
***
The former Observer editor Roger Alton has again stepped into the row about selling the title to digital start-up Tortoise. Alton, who edited the paper for a decade from 1998, last week said he felt there had been an abrogation of responsibility by the Observer owner, the Scott Trust, in putting the title up for sale. He was joined in the criticism by other past Observer editors Will Hutton and John Mulholland. Now Alton has written to Press Gazette to clarify that while he remains unhappy that the Scott Trust “wants to wash its hands of the Obs”, he feels Tortoise would be “an ideal custodian of the traditions and qualities of the Observer”. Staff remain unconvinced. An indicative ballot is being held this week to assess whether there’s sufficient support for strike action. Insiders are convinced there is.
***
The death of the former One Direction singer Liam Payne is horribly sad. Across the media there were tributes to the pop star, who set out on the road to global megastardom aged just 16. Nearly 16 years later, his life ended when he fell from the balcony of a hotel room in Buenos Aires.
Social media feeds and news sites were packed with tributes from those who had known him – and millions more who hadn’t but felt they did. Then the blame game began, as fingers were pointed at the music industry, obsessive fans, the media and social media. But each of these is a strand in a spider’s web. The music industry demands stars build a profile and fan base. The fans and press crave more insight and access. Sharing your life on social media becomes an addiction of its own in the battle for relevance. Payne was another vulnerable young person unable to escape the web.
[See also: Why the media took out Sue Gray]
Listen to the New Statesman podcast
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 23 Oct 2024 issue of the New Statesman, The crisis candidate