It's critical to connect the violently biased rhetoric being used by people and politicians across the country to Trump - it isn't just Trump, it's everyone who elevates him, adores him, or wants in on his power. Keri Lake, Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy - all of them are part of this picture, and people are being attacked and doxed. Just the fact that politicians have to travel with so much more security signals how much this needs to be highlighted. As a progressive voter who has lived in rural Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, I've never worried about my safety as I drove a car with liberal bumper stickers, but now I don't put anything on my car because I don't want some random Trumper to decide it would be fun to hunt me. That's what the media should also cover.
I’ve been “rolling coal-ed” on I-5 in WA, fount spit on my door handle in a parking lot in OR, and a friend was harassed off the road by a MAGA truck in ID. No one was hurt, but the menace is palpable.
Plus there is the whole movement to join Idaho - Greater Idaho movement. I have a lot of friends and co-workers in E. Oregon as well, and the whole idea is so terrible.
There was a recent piece about Trump’s rallies being a lounge act. The audience doesn’t care what he says. They come to laugh and cheer. The rambling monologues and lack of substance don’t matter. They like the character he’s playing.
Biden is effective and dull, Trump is ineffective and ‘interesting’ - the media has always been a sucker for the sensational (because that’s what the viewers want even though they would never admit it).
If the press report on Trump’s sheer idiocy and calls to violence, they think they will kill the golden goose - so they soft peddle the most lunatic and dangerous things Trump says. That, and when democracy fails, they think they will be ok. They won’t, of course - Trump will go after the press (he does already) and they will be surprised that the leopard ate their faces.
Getting Trump’s violent rhetoric into to the public mind is also important as a benchmark for other Republican candidates.
Does that House candidate agree that Milley deserves execution?
Does that State legislature candidate agree with extrajudicial murder of shoplifting suspects? How will they pay for the wrongful death judgements that would follow?
Does that County Commission candidate endorse threats to judges, jurors, and court staff? What county department will they defund to provide extra security at the courthouse?
Who is telling NYT and WaPo reporters to write about "Too many jobs!". Seems like something that's neither popular or something a bunch of writers would independently come up with one news cycle. I don't want to be cynical about all reporters, but I find it hard to believe there isn't a spin community of sorts for media moguls.
Same here. I'm fighting a losing battle with myself. Part of me is 99% sure that there's a corporate media conspiracy to defeat Biden-Harris -- not necessarily because they like Trump but because the Biden administration really is trying to level the playing field that's been ever more skewed in favor of the rich since the Reagan administration. The other part thinks that part is paranoid and this all has more to do with stuff like journalistic groupthink, the decline of print journalism, the obsession with polls, the emphasis on soundbites . . .
It is scary - but why would Bezos own a media company if he couldnt use it the way Musk or Murdoch use theirs? It felt like the "too many jobs" story was an overstep and essentially them giving away the game. It's just one more thing to be weary of when reading the news. 🫠
But to your point - This is why I love Bidenomics - we're finally aligning properly on taxing the rich and corporations instead of letting conservatives cling to their Reganomics philosophy that has endlessly been used to pass disproportionate tax burden to the working man. Every time Pence lamely says "I swear on Regans bible", I smile because he represents an ideology I don't think America will soon return to
Matt M, Katharine Graham and family owned a media company and didn't "use it the way Musk or Murdoch use theirs." The Sulzberger family runs the NY Times (which IIRC is publicly traded) and doesn't use it that way either. I loathe Amazon and don't buy from it, but I'm not going to assume I know Jeff Bezos's motives for acquiring the Post.
P.S. Unless we figure out a way to deal with the 4th branch of government -- Big Money -- we're going to have a hard time getting back to a reasonably level playing field. SCOTUS is going to hamstring anything that their oracles can't find in the minds of the founders.
I grouped these three billionaires together because I think Bezos is the same breed of egomanical power broker as Musk and Murdoch. I take your point that I'm over confident in my speculating, it just doesn't sit right with me and I am frustrated there's no way to verify or deny my suspicions properly.
I subscribe to the Post but not the Times. Trust me, it doesn't look a bit like anything Murdoch owns or, gods forbid, the platform formerly known as Twitter. (The Times lost me because of its abysmal 2016 coverage, compounded by the hiring of Bret Stephens as a columnist.)
Media outlets are for-profit organizations, mostly, and even the few who are not are concerned with their number of viewers/readers. Within that environment, there are news organizations who are not completely cynical and do attempt to provide fair coverage. But only a few can manage their income statement and do in-depth analysis and reporting at the same time.
But even respectable newspapers, broadcast, and online news sites soft-pedal Trumps most egregious comments. Given what we have to operate within, I am very puzzled at why Dems, when confronted with inane questions (Biden's age, Biden's polls, Harris's polls, etc.)--instead of answering--don't immediately turn the question to "Where's the coverage on Trump's violent threats? This guy is going to get more people killed. He is degrading public discourse and whipping people to violence. He is doing real damage to civil society. And you're asking me about a preference poll 13 months before an election?"
Not to channel Bob Dole, but they should speak in his "Where's the outrage?" tone. Dems who are notable enough to get on TV or do interviews should be affronted and ask about this lack of coverage and should be outraged.
I have heard several GOP operatives, when asked about the chaotic GOP House say the Dems are chaotic. Which is ridiculous. But they're often sitting across from a Democrat who says nothing to challenge the stupid assertion. You can't blame that on the media; that's just a dumb Dem not listening and sitting there thinking about what they'll say next.
To me, this animates on a more fundamental cultural level. We are shallow. Agreed that we are all a bit like the retriever at the ball launcher. We need the hits.
I remember when my news came from NPR. All Things Considered. In depth coverage of issues Considered!
Social media engagement has rendered us impatient, reactive and shallow. Globalization is asking much more of us.
The events in Gaza, climate change, Ukraine, and more highlight the need for wisdom. But our minds are so breathlessly attracted to online click bait, chasing the ghost of Jerry Springer. The “tsk tsk tsk” of watching fools online creates the same false sense of superiority as watching “reality tv”. So let’s drop the schoolyard banter (“I know you are but what am I”), and return to in depth analysis of difficult issues.
I look to a day ( not likely in my lifetime) of deep consideration and cooperation for real solutions to fundamental cultural divides.
There is a parenting technique in which the parent narrates the bad behavior of the toddler without engaging. Impersonally narrating his threats without quoting them is a way to report without sensationalizing. There is also the option of a "Threatwatch" in which each of his crazies is catalogued together. The magnitude could eventually be shocking. Sort of like with serial killers.
It’s a bit sophomoric, I admit, but the Enabled site is intended as a sort of threat watch, tracking top Trump enablers and the threats they pose to our republic.
Traditionally op-ed was the sanctioned space for a traditional newspaper to state its views. Rupert Murdoch, in all forms of news media, trashed that line of journalistic demarcation between reporting facts and persuading. Clinging to the formality still seems important, given that journals still have the opportunity (although as you all rightly point out, but don’t use it) to call out what ultimately can and will counter Trump & enablers’ persistent efforts to undermine the republic - the daily, quiet, sleeves-up, eyes-and-minds-focused efforts of the Biden administration to improve our shared domestic and civic life and to support unwaveringly allies encountering the same destructive waves of autocratic disdain and violent acts. What U.S. journalism can do every single day is constantly to cast a critical eye to Jim Jordan’s role as an essential co-enabler of Trump’s assault on the republic and the efforts of all such enablers to protect themselves against prosecution and conviction for sedition and treason by ostensibly continuing to protect Trump from the same. Israel has its Hamas, our republic its Trump & enablers. That is the central story of our time.
"The problem is that the media doesn’t take Trump literally enough."
Trump is as absolutely literal as a person can be. Nuance or subtlety are as foreign to him as Latin. It's a mark of an authoritarian mindset, abetted by a lack of any self-awareness and education (one can attend the "best schools" and still be wholly uneducated).
It's difficult for people with healthy minds to understand; we tend to ascribe complexity when confronted with such absolute literalism, like "he doesn't really mean *that*, does he?" Yes, he does.
It's critical to connect the violently biased rhetoric being used by people and politicians across the country to Trump - it isn't just Trump, it's everyone who elevates him, adores him, or wants in on his power. Keri Lake, Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy - all of them are part of this picture, and people are being attacked and doxed. Just the fact that politicians have to travel with so much more security signals how much this needs to be highlighted. As a progressive voter who has lived in rural Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, I've never worried about my safety as I drove a car with liberal bumper stickers, but now I don't put anything on my car because I don't want some random Trumper to decide it would be fun to hunt me. That's what the media should also cover.
Amen!
I’ve been “rolling coal-ed” on I-5 in WA, fount spit on my door handle in a parking lot in OR, and a friend was harassed off the road by a MAGA truck in ID. No one was hurt, but the menace is palpable.
I'm so sorry. And yes, with all these trump trucks and gun racks it is frightening.
Plus there is the whole movement to join Idaho - Greater Idaho movement. I have a lot of friends and co-workers in E. Oregon as well, and the whole idea is so terrible.
There was a recent piece about Trump’s rallies being a lounge act. The audience doesn’t care what he says. They come to laugh and cheer. The rambling monologues and lack of substance don’t matter. They like the character he’s playing.
Bread & circuses
Biden is effective and dull, Trump is ineffective and ‘interesting’ - the media has always been a sucker for the sensational (because that’s what the viewers want even though they would never admit it).
If the press report on Trump’s sheer idiocy and calls to violence, they think they will kill the golden goose - so they soft peddle the most lunatic and dangerous things Trump says. That, and when democracy fails, they think they will be ok. They won’t, of course - Trump will go after the press (he does already) and they will be surprised that the leopard ate their faces.
Hear, hear! It is even crazier in light of the TWO(?!?) muckraking, longform articles about the VP today. Unbelievable.
Getting Trump’s violent rhetoric into to the public mind is also important as a benchmark for other Republican candidates.
Does that House candidate agree that Milley deserves execution?
Does that State legislature candidate agree with extrajudicial murder of shoplifting suspects? How will they pay for the wrongful death judgements that would follow?
Does that County Commission candidate endorse threats to judges, jurors, and court staff? What county department will they defund to provide extra security at the courthouse?
Who is telling NYT and WaPo reporters to write about "Too many jobs!". Seems like something that's neither popular or something a bunch of writers would independently come up with one news cycle. I don't want to be cynical about all reporters, but I find it hard to believe there isn't a spin community of sorts for media moguls.
Same here. I'm fighting a losing battle with myself. Part of me is 99% sure that there's a corporate media conspiracy to defeat Biden-Harris -- not necessarily because they like Trump but because the Biden administration really is trying to level the playing field that's been ever more skewed in favor of the rich since the Reagan administration. The other part thinks that part is paranoid and this all has more to do with stuff like journalistic groupthink, the decline of print journalism, the obsession with polls, the emphasis on soundbites . . .
It is scary - but why would Bezos own a media company if he couldnt use it the way Musk or Murdoch use theirs? It felt like the "too many jobs" story was an overstep and essentially them giving away the game. It's just one more thing to be weary of when reading the news. 🫠
But to your point - This is why I love Bidenomics - we're finally aligning properly on taxing the rich and corporations instead of letting conservatives cling to their Reganomics philosophy that has endlessly been used to pass disproportionate tax burden to the working man. Every time Pence lamely says "I swear on Regans bible", I smile because he represents an ideology I don't think America will soon return to
Matt M, Katharine Graham and family owned a media company and didn't "use it the way Musk or Murdoch use theirs." The Sulzberger family runs the NY Times (which IIRC is publicly traded) and doesn't use it that way either. I loathe Amazon and don't buy from it, but I'm not going to assume I know Jeff Bezos's motives for acquiring the Post.
P.S. Unless we figure out a way to deal with the 4th branch of government -- Big Money -- we're going to have a hard time getting back to a reasonably level playing field. SCOTUS is going to hamstring anything that their oracles can't find in the minds of the founders.
I grouped these three billionaires together because I think Bezos is the same breed of egomanical power broker as Musk and Murdoch. I take your point that I'm over confident in my speculating, it just doesn't sit right with me and I am frustrated there's no way to verify or deny my suspicions properly.
I subscribe to the Post but not the Times. Trust me, it doesn't look a bit like anything Murdoch owns or, gods forbid, the platform formerly known as Twitter. (The Times lost me because of its abysmal 2016 coverage, compounded by the hiring of Bret Stephens as a columnist.)
That said, I agree with all the contributing factors to the Trump coverage. Thanks for your writing as always!
Media outlets are for-profit organizations, mostly, and even the few who are not are concerned with their number of viewers/readers. Within that environment, there are news organizations who are not completely cynical and do attempt to provide fair coverage. But only a few can manage their income statement and do in-depth analysis and reporting at the same time.
But even respectable newspapers, broadcast, and online news sites soft-pedal Trumps most egregious comments. Given what we have to operate within, I am very puzzled at why Dems, when confronted with inane questions (Biden's age, Biden's polls, Harris's polls, etc.)--instead of answering--don't immediately turn the question to "Where's the coverage on Trump's violent threats? This guy is going to get more people killed. He is degrading public discourse and whipping people to violence. He is doing real damage to civil society. And you're asking me about a preference poll 13 months before an election?"
Not to channel Bob Dole, but they should speak in his "Where's the outrage?" tone. Dems who are notable enough to get on TV or do interviews should be affronted and ask about this lack of coverage and should be outraged.
I have heard several GOP operatives, when asked about the chaotic GOP House say the Dems are chaotic. Which is ridiculous. But they're often sitting across from a Democrat who says nothing to challenge the stupid assertion. You can't blame that on the media; that's just a dumb Dem not listening and sitting there thinking about what they'll say next.
To me, this animates on a more fundamental cultural level. We are shallow. Agreed that we are all a bit like the retriever at the ball launcher. We need the hits.
I remember when my news came from NPR. All Things Considered. In depth coverage of issues Considered!
Social media engagement has rendered us impatient, reactive and shallow. Globalization is asking much more of us.
The events in Gaza, climate change, Ukraine, and more highlight the need for wisdom. But our minds are so breathlessly attracted to online click bait, chasing the ghost of Jerry Springer. The “tsk tsk tsk” of watching fools online creates the same false sense of superiority as watching “reality tv”. So let’s drop the schoolyard banter (“I know you are but what am I”), and return to in depth analysis of difficult issues.
I look to a day ( not likely in my lifetime) of deep consideration and cooperation for real solutions to fundamental cultural divides.
We must.
There is a parenting technique in which the parent narrates the bad behavior of the toddler without engaging. Impersonally narrating his threats without quoting them is a way to report without sensationalizing. There is also the option of a "Threatwatch" in which each of his crazies is catalogued together. The magnitude could eventually be shocking. Sort of like with serial killers.
It’s a bit sophomoric, I admit, but the Enabled site is intended as a sort of threat watch, tracking top Trump enablers and the threats they pose to our republic.
Traditionally op-ed was the sanctioned space for a traditional newspaper to state its views. Rupert Murdoch, in all forms of news media, trashed that line of journalistic demarcation between reporting facts and persuading. Clinging to the formality still seems important, given that journals still have the opportunity (although as you all rightly point out, but don’t use it) to call out what ultimately can and will counter Trump & enablers’ persistent efforts to undermine the republic - the daily, quiet, sleeves-up, eyes-and-minds-focused efforts of the Biden administration to improve our shared domestic and civic life and to support unwaveringly allies encountering the same destructive waves of autocratic disdain and violent acts. What U.S. journalism can do every single day is constantly to cast a critical eye to Jim Jordan’s role as an essential co-enabler of Trump’s assault on the republic and the efforts of all such enablers to protect themselves against prosecution and conviction for sedition and treason by ostensibly continuing to protect Trump from the same. Israel has its Hamas, our republic its Trump & enablers. That is the central story of our time.
Thank you for writing this. Do you think any part of the media will read it and take it seriously?
"The problem is that the media doesn’t take Trump literally enough."
Trump is as absolutely literal as a person can be. Nuance or subtlety are as foreign to him as Latin. It's a mark of an authoritarian mindset, abetted by a lack of any self-awareness and education (one can attend the "best schools" and still be wholly uneducated).
It's difficult for people with healthy minds to understand; we tend to ascribe complexity when confronted with such absolute literalism, like "he doesn't really mean *that*, does he?" Yes, he does.