About that Trump Whisperer

On this lazy Sunday in August, the NYT headline to a straight Politics news piece from Maggie Haberman reads "Trump Tweets Reflect Fixation on Women's Appearances".

source:abcnews.go.com

Throughout the Trump term in office, Haberman has amassed a reputation in some quarters as an access journalist who softens Trump's image along with humanizing treatment of Ivanka and Jared. This approach to news reporting adds fuel to the standard NYT editorial policy on political reporting that nearly always requires "balanced" treatment. The political reporter must report straight facts without interpretation and avoid context because adding useful context changes news reporting to opinion that must appear in the Opinion section. Or if an "in-between" approach is called for, label it clearly "News Analysis". "News Analysis" means we added context, but we were extra careful to be as objective as possible where "objectivity" is defined to mean - assemble facts that seem to go together, but always assume good faith on the part of polticians. That approach is, of course, an enabler of politicians who do act in bad faith.

We have called on the Times to recognize and report patterns of behavior, particularly Trump's patterns, as an important fact and not to take Trump's tweets or statements at face value as statements of his beliefs when a more rational interpretation is that Trump says whatever works most to his advantage in an environment of news reporting that fails to recognize his patterns of behavior for what they represent. Add to this the NYT forced balance approach to political journalism that requires looking for comparisons with presidents of the opposing party (Obama and Clinton).

So it is a bit surprising, given the Times "fair and balanced" standards,  that Trump's attacks on the physical appearance of women, which have gone on so long, are finally reported by the NYT in a straight news piece without seeking out behavior by Obama and Clinton for comparison.

OK, so that is a pattern of behavior, but what does it mean? He is fixated on the physical appearance of women. OK, but he has a lot of deep personal flaws, but of greater significance, if we focus on personal qualities, Trump seems to have an abundance of flaws of both character and personality and the president does not appear to have any positive human characteristics. The obvious conclusion to this piece is that Trump, the POTUS, is an unbelievably petty man - someone who none of us would want to know or deal with in our personal lives or in business. Yet that obvious conclusion would render this piece "opinion", so no go.

Without a conclusion from the author, the Haberman report drops off a cliff at the end.

And several typical NYT reporting flaws remain. Why does every article about Trump's many insults have to close with "and he never apologized"? What is that supposed to mean? Of course he never apologized. He never apologizes. And you apologize if you are a person who makes a mistake and hurt someone accidentally. If you insult people intentionally all the time, then an apology is meaningless. The Times' habit of closing with "and he never apologizes", lame as it is, does matter because it demonstrates just how clueless the NYT is in their coverage of Trump, even at this late date. If the Times had the courage to convey reality about Trump in their reporting, they would not fall back on the "fair and balanced" "He never apologized" as if that statement has meaning.

The Times insists on describing the Christopher Steele series of documents as "a dossier that made salacious claims about Mr. Trump." Never mind that the document represented fairly raw intelligence - so it is not really a dossier, so the document does not make "claims". Of greatest significance, the NYT news articles always link "Steele dossier" with "salacious" even though the least important item mentioned in the document is the possible existence of the pee tape. Which suggests that if the Times wants to talk about "fixations" and Trump, they may want to take a look at their own fixation on pee tape.

Polar Expressions

With the 2018 midterm elections looming, WaPo's headline this morning in a piece by Mike DeBonis plays to balance of those "two sides". So the big political news becomes "Pelosi is the star of GOP attack ads, worrying Democrats upbeat about midterms" which leads with:

"While Democrats grow optimistic about their chances of taking control of the House in November, they are increasingly anxious that the presence of their longtime and polarizing leader, Nancy Pelosi, is making it harder for many of their candidates to compete in crucial swing districts."

You could be forgiven for thinking that the description "polarizing leader" is an apt beginning to any accurate description of Trump. And anyone can see that the Republican talking points in campaigns play to a somewhat visceral reaction of the Republican base to certain prominent Democratic politicians who - not coincidentally - happen to be powerful women, or minorities, or both.

But our popular press gives themselves a pass in news reporting on politics and government - if one "side" does it - Trump in this case, then the other side can safely be assumed to "do it" - meaning Pelosi. If Trump polarizes, all day, every day, then reporting that Pelosi is a "polarizing figure" is deemed to pass the objectivity test. This approach in political news reporting may seem harmless enough, but this flaw in objective reporting, in its many forms, creates a loophole that is exploited by  Republican party campaign (and governing) tactics, as frequently discussed on this blog. And actual assymetry between the two leading parties that dominate U.S. politics is, as a matter of "objective" journalistic practice, explained away. And if you provide counterexamples, then you are presumed biased and your examples are safely ignored. At least that is the position of WaPo much of the time, and the NYTimes editors virtually all the time.

Source: bostonglobe.com

Late today, without reference to the above news article about "polarizing" Pelosi, WaPo opinion writer Paul Waldman in "What Republican attacks on Nancy Pelosi are really about" lays bare the flaws in WaPo's news reporting. The accompanying picture of Pelosi from the DeBonis piece is used again in Waldman's piece, which seems intentional as a call-out on the original article. Waldman explains in detail why Republican campaigns target Pelosi, stating:

"And it’s partly the us-versus-them conflict that has animated every Republican campaign for a half century. Democrats, they tell voters, aren’t like us. They don’t share our values; they’re elitist and alien and threatening. Those ideas can be expressed through issues, but what they’re about is cultural affinity: The Republican candidate is one of us, and the Democratic candidate is one of them."

So it is not about policy. And it is not about anything Pelosi herself actually does. It is all about Republican tactics to demonize the opposition - tactics that Trump was able to employ better than any other Republican candidate in the 2016 primaries.

The term "polarizing" thus applies best to Republican tactics in campaigns. It is something Republicans do - not something our country is, no something that both sides do, or leading Dems do. Only laziness of reporters and their editors, or even bias, can explain why a WaPo news article refers to Pelosi as "polarizing" and it takes a WaPo opinion piece to call out the flaw in WaPo's own reporting.

Flashing The Bunt Sign

For those in power, accountability is important. For the president of the U.S., accountability is of paramount importance due to the awesome power of the presidency as head of state, executive of government, and head of the party, especially in this case as head of the controlling party in the legislature.

And so, when this president, who is prone to holding political rallies for himself as a supplemental form of "governing", did so in Tampa July 31st.  CNN is, of course, a frequent target of Trump's attacks, so it is no wonder that the crowd of Trump devotees chanted menacingly at Jim Acosta during his live reporting.

source:cnn.com

When pressed on this at the daily presser, Sarah Sanders pushed back, citing "The zombie claim that won’t die: The media exposed bin Laden’s phone".

So the president stokes hatred and anger against the responsible news media. He holds rallies of his base - this one attracted QAnon signs. As the base menaces reporters - Trump calls them "fake news". Reporters feel concern for their safety. Sanders pivots to a generalized vague "condemnation" using the "we have always said" form or expression directed at no one in particular, but just as quickly ducks responsibility on behalf of Trump with an irrelevant call for the press to be "responsible", citing that zombie claim.

But whether or not that zombie claim is true or false is irrelevant. In fact, deflecting news organizations to fact checking is a tried and proven method of distraction - more effective than a true claim would be because more work goes into proving a claim false. And if the claim, if true, is irrelevant anyway, then fact checking that claim is an exercise in futility.

Having distracted with a "both sides" argument (where "both sides" means the president on one side and his enemy the press on the "other side"), Sanders pivoted quickly to wrap up with an endorsement of "free speech" - which is strong encouragement to Trump supporters to keep up the good work, to intimidate the press at these rallies and, who knows, any place they may care to track down these members of the press.

Deny
Deflect
Distract
Accuse

(DDDA) is the go to tactical response in these situations. The final statement that follows the DDDA combination inviting continued menacing in the future - "While we certainly support freedom of the press, we also support freedom of speech..." which is effectively like the third base coach flashing the bunt sign in the midst of a raft of other gestures. The Trump supporters, like the batter, know which signs to ignore and which to take to heart.

source:howtheyplay.com