Former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer takes a guess, and in my case he is right. "I’m guessing ... most of you are learning this information for the first time." He's not accusing me or you of being One of Them — the dreaded, low-information voter who drags his or her knuckles to work at, say, the prophylactic factory each morning. No, we are pitiably uninformed on this matter "because the traditional political media decided to ignore this outlandish accusation from a clearly deranged and dishonest man."
It seems the d&d guy appeared two weeks ago on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, "The Kraft durch Freude Hour." The two celebrities chatted about "abortion, China, and Gaza," and the d&d guest "accused Biden of cheating in golf." That was but the warmup. Hewitt then asked Trump about his "debate"-taunting of Biden.
HH: Now you have said you’ll debate him anywhere, anytime. Do you think he’ll agree to any debates?
DJT: Yeah, anywhere, anytime.
HH: Do you think he’ll agree?
DJT: I don’t think so, but I hope he does. I think what happened is you know that white stuff that they happened to find, which happened to be cocaine in the White House [if you've forgotten this non-story, it's here], I don’t know, I think something’s going on there, because I watched this State of the Union, and he was all jacked up at the beginning. By the end, he was fading fast. There’s something going on there. I want to debate. And I think debates, with him, at least, should be drug tested. I want a drug test.
HH: Mr. President, are you suggesting President Biden’s using cocaine? [Risky: President Biden.]
DJT: I don’t know what he’s using, but that was not, hey, he was higher than a kite.... He’s obviously, he’s being helped in some way, because most of the time, he looks like he’s falling asleep. And all of a sudden, he walked up there and did a poor job. But he was all jacked up.
Pfeiffer's reaction to this outlandishness was the only sane reaction to be had: "This is pure insanity." Pfeiffer's point, however, is that the press neglected to cover the "pure insanity" portion of Trump's interview. The press did write about Trump's remarks on Israel and Gaza, which doubtless were stunningly insightful and therefore worthy of ink and airtime. "But they made an editorial decision to bury Trump’s insane accusations," Pfeiffer notes.
He ventures another guess, or rather three, as to why the press let the insanity go. His first two thoughts I find somewhat bewildering: "because it was obviously false and they doubt their own ability to persuade their readers," and "they know that most people don’t click the link and read the article, so it’s easier to ignore."
But Pfeiffer's third musing nails it. "The coverage of the Hugh Hewitt interview was emblematic of the press’s attitude towards Trump. He does a rally or interview filled with insane, incoherent ramblings and then the news clips the most coherent 30-45 seconds to air as part of the package."
Oddly, though I've noticed (been startled by) this phenomenon, I never gave it the concrete thought that Pfeiffer expresses; i.e., I've seen many 45-second clips of Trump delivering an almost cogent statement, and I'd wonder how he managed it. With him, cogency is so rare it sort of jumps out at you and yells Boo! In a sense, though, Trump did not really manage it. The media managed it for him.
Pfeiffer then makes the point that parboils the blood every time. "Imagine that Joe Biden was interviewed on [my] Pod Save America and spoke about the War in Gaza, climate change, his economic plans, his efforts to cancel student debt, and other serious issues, but at one point toward the end of the interview, he casually mentioned that Trump was doing cocaine.
"Would the press ignore the accusation and write a bunch of stories about his climate change accomplishments?" The "double standard" (Pfeiffer's words) is Biden's curse but Trump’s "huge advantage," he observes. "He can make outrageous accusations that demonstrate his unfitness for office and the press would rather ignore them than confront the challenge of covering them responsibly."
I agree with Pfeiffer that the reputable press, more broadly the media, should cover each of Trump's outrages, inanities, defamations, rhetorical jihads and a dozen other depravities, vulgarities and general hooliganisms. But Pfeiffer's commentary and exasperation stop there — as they must.
For there is where reputable media run headfirst into the immovable obstacle preventing disaffection with Trump: the tribe, a very large, very ignorant, very malicious, Trumplike tribe — the very voters who need enlightenment, but just will not hear of it.
I've read many a journalist's recommendations for busting through the tribal obstacle, and I've probably been foolish enough to recommend a maneuver or two myself. None is feasible. When reported by the responsible press, the fascistic bile that Trump spews — as though he's on coke — is quickly disregarded by the entirety of the Volk.
The commonest proposal is made by Charlie Sykes, now of The Atlantic: "Why not relentlessly emphasize the truth, and publish more fact-checked transcripts that highlight his wilder and more unhinged rants?" Be my guest. What follows will be Trumpers' relentless rejection of the truth and more mendacity-based humbuggery that highlights their wilder and more unhinged rants.
I don't enjoy sounding like a defeatist on this score, but face it, dear Responsible Media: Whatever battering ram you use to try to bust through The Great Wall of Trumpian Boneheadedness, you'll fail. You cannot get through to these people.
The good news is that the way to defeat them is so simple, a child could recommend it. Vote.