But the only reason to report in detail on so many outright lies is to tell citizens that any reasonable person should not believe anything that Trump says. If Alec Baldwin can be called a "hot-head" in a political news story because he is a hot-head, surely Trump can be called a liar in every news story about him that includes a claim by him. "Lying Donald Trump says a 400 pound man may have done it" or "Lying Donald Trumps says 'maybe it's Tchina'". This approach would eliminate the need for reporters to lamely state "Trump claims, without presenting evidence..." Yeah. No kidding. Without evidence because he lies all the time.
George Lakoff comes as close as anyone to pinning down the news media for their kid gloves treatment of Trump based on his research over decades. Lakoff explains why fact checking is a recipe for failure. See his Medium piece "A Blitzkrieg Strategy of Lies and Distractions."
Lakoff's writing is compelling:
"Trump’s “big lie” strategy is designed to exploit journalistic convention by providing rapid-fire “news” events for reporters to chase. Trump spews falsehoods in a blitzkrieg fashion, but the lies are only part of the game. What reporters continue to miss is the strategy behind the big lies: to divert attention from big truths. The technique is simple: create controversy and confusion around politically-charged topics to stoke his conservative base and distract from stories that harm Trump.
It’s a numbers game. The more he can get his key terms and images repeated in the media — even as “fact checks” — the more he wins. That’s just how our brains work. The more we hear about something, the more it sticks. Even if it’s not true. When I say “don’t think of an elephant,” it forces you to think of an elephant. Repeating lies, even to debunk them, helps spread and strengthen them. The scientific evidence is clear."
As Lakoff tells us, "Trump’s success is rooted in the media’s tendency to amplify, rather than analyze, his tactics." Lakoff recommends a "truth sandwich", that is, placing the lie between two truths at all times in any coverage, which does not seem adequate either.
Trump's strategy has been enormously successful. Fill in the blank: "Lyin' ___" Or how about "Crooked _______". You don't need help. You know the answers. Funny how the most appropriate and accurate response, though, is 'Trump" in both cases. But that's why he instinctively does that. What better way to distract. And that tells us the best approach. For each specific lie, there is a specific purpose- a denial, distraction, deflection, accusation, and so on that can be identified. In some cases this is speculation, but that is OK. Better to be accurate about treating a tactic as a tactic, which it always is, rather than treat Lyin' Trump's statements as possibly true inputs for the fact checking machine.
Which gets us back to "hot-headed actor Alec Baldwin. OK, if that works, then if Trump makes a claim that is false, and a fact checking reporter determines the statement is false, why not lead that news article with "Lyin' Trump says...". That kind of reporting sounds aggressive, but it would put both Trump and his supporters ( who have by the way embraced lying as a successful tactic) on notice that their little tricks have met some opposition, some tactics for truth. If 10 lies a day does not a liar make, what does? And if the article on Trump does not report Trump lying, then don't refer to him as "Lyin' Trump" in that article. Which is actually a gentle approach, though, to avoid snarkiness, I would suggest "Lying Trump" or "The Lying President" over "Lyin'"
Sometimes Trump is not lying as much as bluffing. This week he felt the need to say that he would raise the troop levels at the border from 5,200 to 15,000. Then he brought up changing the rules of engagement to have troops shoot at anyone who picks up a rock. Wait a second, this caravan of mostly women and children is hundreds of miles away, trying to escape to live in the U.S., and now they are expected to pick up rocks in a threatening manner against the military? of course that makes no sense, but see what he did there? By raising the stakes, he kept the threat of violence on the people from Central America and away from the white nationalist terrorists who struck this week - one who sent bombs to prominent Democrats, another who committed mass murder at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, and yet another who tried to enter a predominately black church, failed, and then murdered a black man and a black woman nearby. My guess is that many Americans missed that last example and many others already forget about it. Trump wants us to forget. And he really does not want us thinking about the two young Saudi women bound together and thrown in the Hudson River off NYC. Because that reminds us about Khashoggi --- and Yemen.
Trump only needs to make his claims and threats to achieve the intended effect - to focus attention on the border with Mexico and away from these horrors.
At the end of the day, political reporting is just one subject of reporting. If the result is deficient, and the truth does not prevail, then remedial action is required. Political reporters who wring their hands and say "We are just doing what we need to do - reporting the facts" are wrong and need to start doing their job. It may not be easy, but it's not as hard as they make it sound.
No comments:
Post a Comment