What should the media do about Trump's daily burlesque?

The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson asks "What should the media do?" about Trump's ​​​​"stage-managed afternoon performances" which are far from actual briefings; which are "campaign rallies designed to stoke passion among Trump’s loyal base"; "blame-shifting exercises in which he points the finger" at everyone but himself; and "unhinged sessions [that] primarily serve as opportunities for Trump to complain bitterly about how nobody appreciates what a 'perfect' job" he has done.

The columnist offers five possible responses to Trump's on-air rallies by a different name. Numbers three and five left me in puzzled disagreement:

"[We could provide] accurate, corrective information before quoting the lie, even in headlines. That is difficult, but not impossible. Broadcast media should consider either taping the briefings and airing only newsworthy excerpts, or providing some means of fact-checking Trump’s statements in real time. Split the screen, if necessary. Cut away altogether when things go completely off the rails.

"Should the White House correspondents walk out en masse? No, because covering the president is their job. Making a pact to follow up on questions Trump refuses to answer truthfully won’t work: Trump can back up a lie with another lie, or just walk away."

Providing either real-time or post-briefing corrections of Trump's lies (which CNN and MSNBC already do) are of course a fundamental purpose of political journalism, while an orchestrated boycott of Trump's on-air rallies and propaganda hours hint at an abrogation of real journalism. On these, I'm with Robinson.

If, however, broadcast media were to cut away altogether when things go completely off the rails, I and probably you — not to mention Joe Biden — would go completely ballistic. Trump's bizarre, mentally disheveled theatrics are what define this unpresidential buffoon, and voters have a right to be reminded of them every day.

Emphatically disagreeable is Robinson's rejection of his final proposal: that reporters should make no pact to follow up. The absence thereof has for decades been political journalism's unoriginal sin. The follow-up is the profession's essence, in that the politician's answer to a question, initially posed, is merely his or her opportunity to lie, dodge or obfuscate.

That Trump will lie every time is his logical modus operandi, since he knows the odds of a follow-up are slim. And if the selfsame reporter or another does follow up, he just lies again — for there, he also knows, is the end of it. But for the press, it shouldn't be. Fourth Estaters should dog him till Sunday and back, and should he choose to walk, so be it; he'll look even more like the lying, dodging, obfuscating, unpresidential buffoon he is.

Other options are perfectly reasonable as well — such as throwing a shoe at him, faking a pistol-hammer click, screaming "Yo mama, bitch," or moving on to ask Pence if he actually swallows the little prick's lies.

Comments

[shsavage]

1) Provide a laugh track.
2) Journalists cooperate to see how quickly they can get Trump to contradict himself; announce a Winner of the Day.

[Anne J]

I tune out completely myself because I've heard stress is bad for the immune system. The Biden campaign disagrees with those of us who think the media should stop airing them altogether. Apparently it's saving them a fuck ton of money not having to do oppo research and the attack ads write themselves.

[Peter G]

Both excellent ideas.

[Peter G]

If journalists want to salvage some shred of dignity in this they should follow your advice with which I heartily agree. Every idiotic moment of these goofy exercises in self congratulation should be covered for later reference. Anne is right, let Trump provide all the oppo research. I am frankly getting a little tired of journalistic pieces praising other journalists for asking tough questions. Follow them up if you think they were good questions.

[Anne J]

Of course the attack ads also wrote themselves in 2016, but there are significant differences between then and now. Back then Trump was the loud mouthed un p.c. popular rabble rouser running against the hated HRC. But now he is the incumbent, and 2020 is a referendum on his presidency. A raging pandemic with a high body count is definitely a huge black mark against him but sometimes I wonder if even that will be enough to oust his fat orange ass out of office. I refuse to take anything for granted.

[Peter G]

Yea. Isn't it great! Boy those Trump voters sure showed us libs. The thing is,they aren't getting any smarter are they, those Trump supporters?

[Anne J]

They may be getting deader. I can't help but have a morbid curiosity about whether or not the body count will have a partisan divide. But just in case there are more dead Trump voters than non Trump voters, I don't see how even Trump himself doesn't question how it works in his favor to kill off his base. Which is what he's doing by encouraging these stupid protests. And it's not like he's trying to gain any new supporters to his deadly cause.

[Peter G]

Given the predilection of older voters to vote for Republicans I can pretty much guarantee a partisan divide on the body count. Interestingly though Trump's urging to prematurely open the economy (as if he could) is losing him support in that demographic range. Apparently grandma and grandpa are not all that anxious to sacrifice themselves to improve Trump's election chances.

[Peter G]

From Daniel Dale's twitter feed:

Trump at a tree-planting ceremony: "We're planting 10 beautiful specimen trees. They're specimens. All specimens. People may think that's an exaggeration or that's a Trump term. Actually, they're sold as specimens. They cost more money but they are better. I buy a lot of 'em."

Nursery guys are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Freesia]

Ha! Was the shovel gold plated by any chance?

He is such a dunce. I'm surprised he didn't say "This is a tree. Many people don't know that. It's true. Yesterday someone said to me 'Sir. Thank you for introducing trees to America. That's why I'm voting for you.' Not that I'll get credit for this. The fake media will tell you that they've seen trees before."

[Max]

Clinton lost the older vote by -7. I saw a poll, yesterday (sorry, can't place it at the moment) that has Biden up by +9 with older voters. The piece noted a 71% voting rate of older voters in '16 - the highest of any age group. So Trump is losing older voters, who in fact vote.

[Peter G]

That was eerily accurate. We gotta be careful about staring dumbfounded into the abysmal idiot.

[Anne J]

Trump supporters have no problem with loss of life unless it's their own. Look at COVIDiots like Stephen Moore and the lieutenant governor of Texas. Advocating to reopen the economy now from the safety of self quarantine. I don't see them out in the streets unprotected among the protesting crowds.

[Peter G]

Maybe that Florida poll that showed those results. Good news either way.

[Max]

I believe this was a national poll. and it referenced Clinton's number. I've seen a couple recent polls on Florida where Biden +6 seems to be the convergence. I have not seen data on older Floridians but suspect it's a pretty red crowd, given what my friends who live there say, ymmv.

[Freesia]

Don't we though? He's like some critter out of a Greek myth that if you look at or listen to him you suddenly you go mad and bash your head into the rocks and sailors avoid his island.

[Jason]

Meanwhile, this is straight out of the Soviet playbook:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/under-trump-coronavirus-scientists-can-speak--as-long-as-they-toe-the-line/2020/04/22/a0a67c12-84b9-11ea-878a-86477a724bdb_story.html

Is this America’s Chernobyl?

[Freesia]

Jason, it's behind the paywall for me. Would you mind summing up the highlights from the article? It sounds important.

[Mary]

I saw this comment in the middle of the night here and it made me laugh. Peter, beat me to it in his comment. You have absolutely nailed Trump's idiocy.

[Jason]

My apologies, Freesia. It’s basically a recounting of the various times that the heads of federal health and science agencies have either been fired for contradicting Trump or have walked back their statements under fear of his wrath. It’s not editorial, just straight reporting. Here’s the opening excerpt. It gets worse from there:

Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, issued a candid warning Tuesday in a Washington Post interview: A simultaneous flu and coronavirus outbreak next fall and winter “will actually be even more difficult than the one we just went through,” adding that calls and protests to “liberate” states from stay-at-home orders — as President Trump has tweeted — were “not helpful.”
The next morning, Trump cracked down with a Twitter edict: Redfield had been totally misquoted in a cable news story summarizing the interview, he claimed, and would be putting out a statement shortly.
By Wednesday evening, Redfield appeared at the daily White House briefing — saying he had been accurately quoted after all, while also trying to soften his words as the president glowered next to him.

[Freesia]

That's chilling Jason. Not just that he said Redfield had been misquoted, but that he then made him appear at the briefing expecting that he'd swallow his words and please the Master. Hats off to Redfield for still speaking the truth while the beast glowered.

God Trump is rotten.

[Jason]

And the Redfield incident is but one part of a more expansive report.