In a saner world, a presidential candidate suggesting that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff should be put to death would be a big deal, not to mention the sort of assertion that would kill any presidential aspirations and raise serious questions of the need for committment for mental health observation. But that’s not our world, and it’s little more than Trump’s daily call for violence against his detractors and enemies, which seems to grow hourly.
Should he not be asked by journalists why he would say such an insane thing? Since he won’t take the stage in the Republican candidates’ debate where he has nothing to gain and much to lose if something too batshit crazy for even his adoring fans comes out of his mouth. Or perhaps another lie too obvious or too stupid to overlook? The pitfalls for Trump are many, but then, isn’t that true when he’s being interviewed?
Media critics are decrying the Trump interview by NBC’s Kristin Welker, a dubious choice to take over Meet The Press. They argue that mainstream media should not platform Darth Cheeto so he can lie, obfuscate and misinform. Why give him a platform to ignore questions and spew nonsense in their place?
“It’s arguable that, at this juncture, there is really no need to interview Trump,” posited CNN media writer Oliver Darcy. “Just a colossal mistake to showcase this sociopath,” tweeted American Enterprise Institute emeritus scholar and Atlantic contributing editor Norman Ornstein. “Downright dangerous journalism to legitimize this guy—in the name of having a ‘talked about’ premiere,” charged former New York Times media reporter Bill Carter. “Is it possible,” an exasperated former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob wondered, “that journalists who platform lying fascists don’t know they’re undermining democracy?”
Granted, Welker wasn’t up to the task of either getting Trump to provide responses to questions or confronting him with the facts when he spewed lies. But that’s a problem with Welker, not with Trump being interviewed.
“Interviewing Trump does not work,” declared NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen. “No accountability moment ever comes.” Welker’s effort “proved once again that interviewing the 45th president is an impossible task,” averred Vanity Fair‘s Molly Jong-Fast. The Bulwark‘s Jonathan Last made the bold comportmental assertion that the “media’s job—and particularly broadcast media—is to think deeply about how to avoid helping Trump with its coverage….It would be nice if the folks in broadcast media could lend us—and democracy—a hand. Or, at the very least, stop giving aid and comfort to the authoritarian just because you want to pull a ratings number.”
The argument is that Trump can’t, or won’t, answer questions. Trump can’t, or won’t, tell the truth. Trump can’t, or won’t, focus, stay on topic or say something without reversing himself three or more times in a single sentence.The argument is that the mainstream media should not enable Trump to be Trump because he’s, well, Trump.
But like it or not, and they don’t, Trump remains the putative Republican candidate for president and, given plethora of problems with Old Man Biden and the Democrats acquiescence to their most extreme wing, he could end up winning by default.
“Be truthful, not neutral,” is the catchphrase longtime CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour has been drawing industry-wide praise for this season, including back in May when she deployed it to criticize her own network for holding a live town hall interview with the former and would-be future president.
If everyone already knows what Trump is, and either loathes him or loves him because of it, is there any reason to give him more free airtime? Matt Welch offers a reason.
Accepting for the moment the provocative premise that preventing Trump’s re-election is a core journalistic value, refusing to interview the guy is like taking away the rope with which he is always ready to hang himself. Given that he is unlikely to testify at his four upcoming criminal trials, interviews are a critical venue for hearing Trump’s legally germane rationalizations for engaging in facially illegal conduct.
Perhaps more to the point, is the media as gatekeeper to information right or wrong to refuse to be party to airing more Trump? Should the media be the one to decide who is deserving of airing, and accordingly, the presidency, because they despise Trump, or is it their responsibility to cover Trump, interview Trump, platform Trump, no matter how despicable he is?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply, within reason.
I watched the interview. It’s a bore. He rambles semi-coherently. He can’t stay on topic. His command of language is poor. He mostly says nothing at painful length.
What if they aired an interview and nobody cared?
The media “should” do a lot of things that they aren’t doing, but it’s long since been obvious to anyone watching that they’re nothing more than the propaganda arm of the progressives. And thus it is a core value for them to prevent Trump’s election.
Were that true, they would at least ask the obvious and hard for him to answer questions.
Captain Picard’s forehead is so red right now.
I regret that I have but one face to palm for my country ” – Tamara Keel
All this hand-wringing now about not providing Trump a platform strikes me as more of an effort by the media to cover their hindquarters than to fulfil any sort of legitimate journalistic function. They had a chance to ignore Trump following his 2020 election loss, once he was no longer President, denying him the thing he seems to crave most: attention. Instead, they talked about him ad nauseum, often shoehorning him into stories that had nothing to do with him because they felt compelled to demonize him at every possible turn.
Well said. The incessant media coverage after 2020 to recover viewers lost after the election makes the calls for a principled stand now seem more than a little hypocritical.
Almost as if they need Trump around in order to keep their support base.
“ In a saner world, a presidential candidate suggesting that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff should be put to death would be a big deal, not to mention the sort of assertion that would kill any presidential aspirations and raise serious questions of the need for committment for mental health observation.”
That isn’t what Trump said, but I’ve gotten used to his words being misrepresented when is suits people to do so.
Sadly, quoting him accurately would serve as well. It would highlight his sense of grievance and desire to settle scores if re-elected.
It’s not a quote, and it’s a very fair characterization of what Trump “suggested.” You may be a bit too sensitive about it.
Looking up the wording, Trump said Milley committed “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.”
So it is a bit of an exaggeration to say he called for Milley’s execution–not much, but a bit.
If you plug this back into the article, it’s point still logically follows.
Ima type this really, really slow. Where in the post does it say “he called for Milley’s execution”? Why does this need to be said?
Your exact words were “… a presidential candidate suggesting that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff should be put to death would be a big deal,”
How big is the step from “suggesting” to “called for?”
How long must a man’s legs be?
That’s how I interpreted your opening sentence, but reading more carefully, you’re right. Mea culpa.
I’m not sure even Newton Minow could have imagined how bad this would all turn out. I keep hoping thoughtful and educated conservatives will one day come to the realization that some things are too important to be managed by the vagaries of accumulated self-interest.
If the media truly hated Trump, as these selectively myopic defenders posit, they would interview him more, and get more confessions out of him.
Shouldn’t the question be how to cover Trump, rather than whether to cover him in the first place? If there was no coverage, at least on something other than the Robin Byrd show, then Trump would very likely respond by becoming increasingly outrageous if for no other reason than to get attention. Giving Trump airtime is similarly fraught with peril. Why not take the middle ground and cover him in, say, a BBC-esque manner? Bland and factually accurate yet detached. “President Trump issued a statement today. In other news, King Charles took a walk. And now, the weather.”
All of this talk about not covering Trump is pure sophistry. Trump is the star of the show. Without Trump, they would have nothing. Most of their audience has already left in search of real news and honest commentary. The ones who remain are there to see Trump. The “conservative” MSM viewers love to love him, and the “liberal” viewers love to hate him. Either way, he is the main attraction.