Stop Sanewashing Trump

Here’s what I’ve recently found interesting:

• The media needs to stop sanewashing Trump’s speeches;
• Unanswered questions reporters should pursue;
• Right-wing violence is the election story nobody wants to talk about;
• How will we react now that we cannot assume photographs capture reality;
• Trump’s Arlington debacle demonstrates how we will govern;
• The horrifying fascist manifesto endorsed by JD Vance;
• Melissa Ludtke tells her story about fighting to be able to do her job as a baseball writer; and
• We must remember what happened on January 6, 2021.

#1

The Press Response to Trump’s Word Salad Answer on Childcare is Peak Sanewashing (Parker Malloy, The Present Age, Link to Article)

Earlier this week, I wrote an article for The New Republic (and expanded on it in a post here at TPA) about how the media “sanewashes” Trump. If you missed that, I recommend checking it out.

And then yesterday, we were given a perfect example of this.

Moms First CEO and Founder Reshma Saujani asked Trump: “If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable, and if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?”

It’s an extremely straightforward question with an extremely straightforward answer: “Yes, I will commit to that. This is the specific piece of legislation I support that would do that: [insert specific legislation to be talked about].”

But that’s not how Trump answered. Instead, he gave an incoherent, meandering, nearly two-minute response.

WHY I FIND IT INTERESTING: 

Sanewashing is such a perfect word for this dynamic. Just a few weeks ago, we were led to believe that a presidential candidate’s verbal slip-ups were a national security issue. As you may recall, media coverage of President Joe Biden’s minor gaffes was covered relentlessly and seen as proof that he was too old to seek a second term.

Meanwhile, those same media outlets are transforming the jibberish shared by former President Trump into something coherent, covering up a more serious situation.

Take, for example, Trump’s answer to the childcare question Malloy noted above. Here is a transcript of what Trump actually said.

Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Sen. Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care. You have to have it — in this country you have to have it.

But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to — but they’ll get used to it very quickly — and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take.

I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just told you about.

We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in. We’re going to make this into an incredible [country that can] afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people, but we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about Make America Great Again, we have to do it because right now we’re a failing nation, so we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you.

Read that out loud. That answer makes no sense. Given the demand for policy details, one would think this should be a situation worthy of major coverage. Yet here’s how The New York Times’ Michael Gold described it to his readers:

After his speech, Donald Trump was asked how he might address rising child care costs. In a jumbled answer, he said he would prioritize legislation on the issue but offered no specifics and insisted that his other economic policies, including tariffs, would “take care” of child care. “As much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in.”

Gold does not help the reader understand what happened. A “jumbled answer” hardly explains what Trump shared with his audience. Gold then takes that word salad and makes it into something that falsely appears coherent.

Malloy offers many other examples of this sanewashing dynamic in her article. It is illuminating to see how much effort reporters are offering to put a sane filter on the former president’s rants.

Most people do not watch these events live. They are relying on what reporters and editors share. They often do not read anything more than the headlines they see in push alerts on their phones or social media posts.

By sanewashing Trump, the media is sharing a false version of this campaign’s reality. Instead of transmitting information, the media is reducing voters’ knowledge about this election.

Given the intense focus on President Biden’s age and mental acuity just a few weeks ago, how can anyone justify not asking the same questions about Trump now?

Why are media outlets willing to sanewash Trump’s speeches while downplaying news that would have resulted in political earthquakes in previous election cycles? How would it look different if reporters, editors, and publishers had declared they were trying to help Trump win?

Things I Find Interesting is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider joining for free or becoming a paid subscriber and helping to buy me some coffee to drink while I write.

#2

James Fallows (@JamesFallows on X/Twitter, August 31, 2024, link to post)

It’s been weeks since Trump promised to release flight records about his (mythical) helo flight with Willie Brown, and threatened to sue NYT for saying it was BS.

It’s been days since he promised to release Arlington video.

He will never do it. (Imagine this from Harris.)

Jamesetta Williams (@jalexa1218 on X/Twitter, August 31, 2024, link to post)

There are simply too many Trump related stories the media has been slow on, while griping about Harris’ interviews: what’s the deal with this $10M from Egypt? What really happened at Arlington Cemetery? What’s in the leaked emails? Where is the analysis of Trump’s mental acuity?

David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik on X/Twitter, September 2, 2024, link to post)

After a week, here’s what we’re left with: No video, no exoneration on Trump side. Journalists and lawmakers should push for answers and more materials. If either side – the Trump campaign or the US Army – isn’t telling the truth, that should be known. And knowable.

WHY I FIND IT INTERESTING: 

The Trump campaign promised to share a video of the incident at the Arlington National Cemetery. Where is it?

The Trump campaign promised to share the flight logs and records of the helicopter flight the former president claimed he had taken with former California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. Where are they?

We heard about a credible claim that Egypt’s leadership bribed Trump before the 2016 election a few weeks ago. That alleged bribe may have been linked to a loan Trump made to his campaign. (link to Will Bunch article) What media outlets are investigating? Is there new information?

What hit former President Trump during the assassination attempt last month? Trump claims it was a bullet. But that has not been confirmed by independent medical authorities. How do we not know the details of this assassination attempt?

At least three media outlets (Politico, The Washington Post, and The New York Times) have received leaks of emails hacked from the Trump campaign. Given what happened with the emails stolen from Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016, why aren’t we seeing daily updates about what is in the Trump emails? If editors have decided they made a mistake in 2016, why aren’t they sharing that with their readers and viewers? (link to Off Message by Brian Beutler story)

All of these stories are major ones. I am one of the people who is baffled that we do not see aggressive coverage of them. We saw what the media can do to amplify a story with their aggressive coverage of President Biden’s age. What is behind their choice not to provide updates on these?

#3

The Election Story Nobody Wants to Talk About (Rick Perlstein, The American Prospect, link to article)

Rick Perlstein: What are the basic outlines of this story no one wants to talk about?

David Neiwert: We’re once again faced with a situation where a substantial bloc of American politics is talking about committing acts of violence and bringing down the government. We saw this before, in 2020, in the run-up to that election and the aftermath. A lot of us held back; obviously, these guys have a long history of blowing off a lot of steam, talking, and wildly exaggerating their actual ability to carry out a threat. But I think we saw on January 6th, that was probably not the wisest view to take. We should have been paying more attention to what these guys were saying amongst themselves online. And what they’re saying amongst themselves right now is probably disturbing. Because they’re talking about shooting their neighbors.

WHY I FIND IT INTERESTING: 

There have been repeated efforts to downplay the seriousness of the threat of right-wing domestic terrorism since the Obama Administration withdrew a comprehensive FBI study about the issue in 2009 after facing intense backlash from Republican elected officials and right-wing activists (link to Southern Poverty Law Center article).

Of course, that didn’t stop the right-wing domestic terrorism. It didn’t prevent the murder of reproductive health doctor George Tiller, a neo-Nazi’s attack on the Holocaust Museum, election-deniers attacks against poll workers and election clerks, Q-Anon-related attacks, the January 6, 2021, insurrection against the United States government, among others (link to PBS Newshour story).

Neiwart is an expert on right-wing extremism and tried to warn people about the 2021 insurrection based on what he was reading in radical right-wing internet discussions. So, I take it seriously when he expresses concern that the White House, Congress, law enforcement, and the media are not ready for what we are likely to face during and after the election.

#4

No one’s ready for this: Our basic assumptions about photos capturing reality are about to go up in smoke (Sarah Jeong, The Verge, link to article)

An explosion from the side of an old brick building. A crashed bicycle in a city intersection. A cockroach in a box of takeout. It took less than 10 seconds to create each of these images with the Reimagine tool in the Pixel 9’s Magic Editor. They are crisp. They are in full color. They are high-fidelity. There is no suspicious background blur, no tell-tale sixth finger. These photographs are extraordinarily convincing, and they are all extremely fucking fake. 

Anyone who buys a Pixel 9 — the latest model of Google’s flagship phone, available starting this week — will have access to the easiest, breeziest user interface for top-tier lies, built right into their mobile device. This is all but certain to become the norm, with similar features already available on competing devices and rolling out on others in the near future. When a smartphone “just works,” it’s usually a good thing; here, it’s the entire problem in the first place.

…

This is all about to flip — the default assumption about a photo is about to become that it’s faked, because creating realistic and believable fake photos is now trivial to do. We are not prepared for what happens after.

WHY I FIND IT INTERESTING: 

Oh, I’m not thrilled companies are releasing these A.I. photography tools right before a presidential election. We need to start talking about what it means to our society now that users can fake or modify photos so easily (the article I link to above has some stunning examples).

What does it mean for news coverage, law enforcement, and the justice system now that we must assume a photo is fake until it is proven true? How will we convince people to change an assumption they have been able to hold for their lifetimes?

The technology companies are not going to fix this problem. They will once again release a technology without the safeguards or study something so transformational should have.

Thank you for reading Things I Find Interesting. This post is public so feel free to share it with your family and friends.

#5

Trump’s Arlington Debacle Shows Us How He Will Govern (Dan Moynihan, Can We Still Govern, link to article)

Former President Trump and his entourage went to Arlington National Cemetery. The purpose of the visit was to score political points, portraying the Biden administration as a weak steward of the military. The actual result was somewhat different; a multi-day media embarrassment amidst reports that Trump’s team ignored clear rules about using Arlington for campaign purposes, and shoved aside an official who tried to enforce those rules.

At one level, Arlington is just one more stumble in a campaign that seems to have lost its way. But its more important than that. I see the incident through the lens of governance. From that perspective, Arlington is a small moment that offers a big insight into what a second Trump administration might look like. And its worth paying attention to it precisely because I don’t think we really has a full sense of how a hyper-politicized administration would operate. Frankly, I study this stuff and even I can’t predict all of the ways that a partisan model of presidential administration would seep into every crevice of government. But specific examples like this one force us to imagine what another, more debased, version of American government would look like.

WHY I FIND IT INTERESTING: 

I am appalled by what former President Trump and his staff did at Arlington National Cemetery. To take some of the most sacred space in our nation and abuse it for partisan goals is just another example of Trump’s inability to understand how a non-partisan and civilian-controlled military operates.

But that isn’t surprising given everything we’ve learned about how this man, who avoided Vietnam because of bone spurs, attacked the late Senator John McCain for getting captured (link to article) and, according to former Chief of Staff John Kelly, called soldiers who died in war “suckers and losers” (link to article).

In this article, Moynihan explains what this abhorrent behavior demonstrates about how Trump would govern if he wins a second term. We see how Trump treats public servants, celebrates lawbreaking on his behalf, and how the terror his supporters create through their threats protects him from being held accountable.

Like many authoritarians, Trump is not being subtle about what he intends to do and how he intends to do it.

#6

The Horrifying Fascist Manifesto Endorsed By J.D. Vance (Nathan J. Robinson, Current Affairs, link to article)

The book Unhumans, by Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec, is a fascist manifesto. It argues that the “Great Men of History” should take their cues from homicidal dictators like Augusto Pinochet and Francisco Franco, reject reason and democracy, and ruthlessly annihilate the gangs of communist “unhumans” who are currently threatening to destroy the United States. It explicitly advocates “eye for an eye” justice, promising a new McCarthyism complete with blacklists, along with the immediate banning of all teachers’ unions. It is perhaps the most paranoid, hateful, and terrifying book I have ever picked up. (I say this as someone who has read Mein Kampf.) And it comes with a warm and supportive blurb from Ohio senator J.D. Vance, who is currently the Republican party’s vice presidential nominee.

Vance had this to say of Unhumans: “In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR [Human Resources], college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people. In Unhumans, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.”

…

Unhumans is both a manifesto and a guide for action. Its central argument, which I will state as dispassionately as possible, is that leftists are not fellow human beings who should be accepted as part of a pluralistic society, but rather “unhumans” bent on destroying the civilized order. Citing the usual parade of 20th century communist dictators (Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot), Posobiec and Lisec argue that even if it may not look like the contemporary United States is under threat from a communist revolution, we are under threat, besieged by furtive, scheming unhumans who must be rooted out before they can consummate their fiendish plot to commit mass murder. Stopping the unhumans will require shedding commitments to democracy, free speech, reasoned debate, and tolerance of alternate points of view. Instead, they argue, the right should find its role models in Caesar, Joseph McCarthy, and various murderous anti-communist dictators of the 20th century.

WHY I FIND IT INTERESTING: 

Oh yeah, there is nothing weird about this situation. Nope. Nothing at all.

The list of weird and disturbing things JD Vance has said—or has supported—grows with each passing day. It has made more than one person wonder what we are going to learn in October if we are already seeing so much disturbing opposition research about him.

The premise of this book is even more disturbing than Vance’s statements about women and families. As its title suggests, this book seeks to rob anyone who disagrees with this worldview of their humanity. It is one of the first steps in any authoritarian regime’s playbook to eliminate dissent and justify violence.

We are fortunate that they are being so clear about what they intend to do. It gives us a better chance to prevent it.

#7

“To do my job, I had to be there too.” (Melissa Ludtke, Joe Blogs Guest Post, link to article)

I didn’t set out to challenge Major League Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn in the late 1970s, when I was the rare woman covering baseball. Still, I ended up as the named plaintiff in the groundbreaking 1978 court case, Ludtke v. Kuhn, which changed the course of sports history by giving women sportswriters the equal access we needed to interview the ballplayers, manager and coaches in the locker room. That was where male reporters had talked with baseball players for decades.

To do my job, I had to be there too.

In Locker Room Talk: A Woman’s Struggle to Get Inside, I tell what it was like to be a 26-year-old single woman who was mocked and parodied in print and on TV for taking on what the men claimed was my “silly” fight. Back then, the men held all the microphones on the airwaves and typed all the stories about the games men played. So, their views of me prevailed. It didn’t take long for me to know I’d lost my case in the court of public opinion, but within the year, I won in a court of law, and that made all the difference.

WHY I FIND IT INTERESTING: 

I am so glad Joe Posnanski gave Melissa Ludtke the keys to his newsletter to describe her book about a critical moment in journalism.

It may seem remarkable to people today that Commissioner Bowie Kuhn created such a mess by being so awful to Ludtke while she was trying to do her job as a baseball writer. As Posnanski describes in an introduction to Ludtke’s post, though, “It’s truly astonishing how often Bowie Kuhn was on the wrong side of history. But you do have to say this about him: He was never shy about being on the wrong side of history; he was always arrogantly on the wrong side of history.”

I’m glad Ludtke gets this opportunity to tell her story. Her guest post is a great entree into what happened and what it took to win against a bunch of terrible people.

We Must Remember What Really Happened During the January 6, 2021, Insurrection

Post-Game Comments

Today’s Thought from my Readwise collection:

“There can be no hopes, dreams, and ideals where there is no shared reality; and there is no political community where there is only the self-obsessed and endlessly self-referential president.” (Masha Gessen, Surviving Autocracy)

Thank you for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Thank you for reading my newsletter. Let me know what you think about what you’ve read. Send me things you’ve found interesting! You can email me at craigcheslog@substack.com. 

Things I Find Interesting is free and supported voluntarily by its readers. If you liked what you read, and only if you can afford to, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or sponsor.