Good points about how the mainstream media covered the election. But I wonder how much it even matters how the MSM covers the Trump administration, given its declining influence. In fact, what does “mainstream media” even mean anymore? (I prefer the term “legacy media.”) I believe social media and podcasters had more influence on voters this time around.
Plus, there’s the threat of Trump seeking legal retribution against the big media institutions like The NY Times and WaPo, an action likely to have more success under the current SCOTUS — covered here:
Thanks Barth. Legacy media is probably a better term, especially when you consider that podcasters such as Joe Rogan have an even greater reach than legacy and have worked their way into becoming mainstream. As for Trump exacting retribution against media outlets and their parent companies, I expect it would end up in the courts. Then we would have to see to what extent even Trump-appointed judges would back him up. As they say in the legacy news business, "Stay tuned!"
You have a misperception about the term “sane-washing,” which, considering the newness of the terms, is understandable. You write:
So should an anxiety-ridden news media actually report every harebrained pronouncement, every blustering threat, every crude insult that tumbles from his mouth? After all, that’s precisely what Trump wants us to do. And to decline to take the bait isn’t necessarily sanewashing. In most cases, it’s simply depriving him of the ability to spread the shit.
But the MSM has hardly ever “declined to take the bait… depriving him of the ability to spread shit,” and that failure to call shit is the sane-washing. The New York Times is infamous for reporting Trump’s bullshit—including outright outrageously dangerous-to-American-democracy bullshit—without calling it out, is part of the normalizing or sane-washing play. I doubt NYT and others did this because they’re unaware of ape-shit statements, but because they are confused about the role of news. The role should include saying, “Well, in fact, the Emperor is buck naked.”
But, oh no, that violates some prissy propriety standard that makes my mémère’s best behavior look like Hannibal Lector behavior (to use a current allusion). MSM is populated, at least at the top, by people who love being professional journalists in terms of salary and access and fellowship with the powerful, a.k.a., elites, and this is bad for useful news. This is probably largely responsible for the talking head circle-jerks that make up much of MSM, and this is a form of reality TV, by the way, with the same low-cost easy-peasy production. Thinking—and thinking outside one’s of own reality—is hard and expensive work, and mainly because you have to go question your own assumptions and talk to people outside your experience and do the research.
So, yes, MSM (and let’s remember consolidation of ownership, also called monopoly) carries a lot of responsibility for Trump’s ascension.
But the Democrats fall into the same elitism, and everyone know this. The Democrats, with some fortunate exceptions that don’t include Harris, actually can see the reality of the vast majority of Americans, and that reality is that with the long run of neoliberalism, the rich have been standing on most of our heads in an increasingly heavy way, and that, increasingly so, is uncomfortable. Despite having policies that address this or that element of discomfort—the child care tax credit comes to mind—Harris and her stand-ins failed to confess that things are tough for the 80th income percentile and under. She could have said, about the child care tax credit, “Gee, you know, you have been getting screwed and here’s one small way you can get help.”
Trump, somehow, convinces people that he sees them, and in not some small part because he attacks the elites and, frankly, the elites are rightly seen as those who have been in government, academia, and media for sometimes better and sometimes worse, but each and every not talking about the rich standing on peoples’ heads. Harris wants to bring grocery prices down, but doesn’t mention the consolidation of ownership of supermarkets to something like four companies owning 80-90% of supermarkets? Really?
Um, sorry, what was my point?
I always take a moment to look at your work, Terry, and too often for my own scheduling, that moment turns into a full-bore read out.
Hi David. I do agree that sane-washing isn't necessarily failing to report Trump's antics, but it could also be reporting it as normal or unremarkable. Also agree about the bipartisan nature of the BS.
Thanks for reading David and Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours up in the Berkshires!
Good points about how the mainstream media covered the election. But I wonder how much it even matters how the MSM covers the Trump administration, given its declining influence. In fact, what does “mainstream media” even mean anymore? (I prefer the term “legacy media.”) I believe social media and podcasters had more influence on voters this time around.
Plus, there’s the threat of Trump seeking legal retribution against the big media institutions like The NY Times and WaPo, an action likely to have more success under the current SCOTUS — covered here:
https://newrepublic.com/article/188858/transcript-trumps-rage-nyt-offers-unnerving-hint-whats-coming
Thanks Barth. Legacy media is probably a better term, especially when you consider that podcasters such as Joe Rogan have an even greater reach than legacy and have worked their way into becoming mainstream. As for Trump exacting retribution against media outlets and their parent companies, I expect it would end up in the courts. Then we would have to see to what extent even Trump-appointed judges would back him up. As they say in the legacy news business, "Stay tuned!"
Terry,
You have a misperception about the term “sane-washing,” which, considering the newness of the terms, is understandable. You write:
So should an anxiety-ridden news media actually report every harebrained pronouncement, every blustering threat, every crude insult that tumbles from his mouth? After all, that’s precisely what Trump wants us to do. And to decline to take the bait isn’t necessarily sanewashing. In most cases, it’s simply depriving him of the ability to spread the shit.
But the MSM has hardly ever “declined to take the bait… depriving him of the ability to spread shit,” and that failure to call shit is the sane-washing. The New York Times is infamous for reporting Trump’s bullshit—including outright outrageously dangerous-to-American-democracy bullshit—without calling it out, is part of the normalizing or sane-washing play. I doubt NYT and others did this because they’re unaware of ape-shit statements, but because they are confused about the role of news. The role should include saying, “Well, in fact, the Emperor is buck naked.”
But, oh no, that violates some prissy propriety standard that makes my mémère’s best behavior look like Hannibal Lector behavior (to use a current allusion). MSM is populated, at least at the top, by people who love being professional journalists in terms of salary and access and fellowship with the powerful, a.k.a., elites, and this is bad for useful news. This is probably largely responsible for the talking head circle-jerks that make up much of MSM, and this is a form of reality TV, by the way, with the same low-cost easy-peasy production. Thinking—and thinking outside one’s of own reality—is hard and expensive work, and mainly because you have to go question your own assumptions and talk to people outside your experience and do the research.
So, yes, MSM (and let’s remember consolidation of ownership, also called monopoly) carries a lot of responsibility for Trump’s ascension.
But the Democrats fall into the same elitism, and everyone know this. The Democrats, with some fortunate exceptions that don’t include Harris, actually can see the reality of the vast majority of Americans, and that reality is that with the long run of neoliberalism, the rich have been standing on most of our heads in an increasingly heavy way, and that, increasingly so, is uncomfortable. Despite having policies that address this or that element of discomfort—the child care tax credit comes to mind—Harris and her stand-ins failed to confess that things are tough for the 80th income percentile and under. She could have said, about the child care tax credit, “Gee, you know, you have been getting screwed and here’s one small way you can get help.”
Trump, somehow, convinces people that he sees them, and in not some small part because he attacks the elites and, frankly, the elites are rightly seen as those who have been in government, academia, and media for sometimes better and sometimes worse, but each and every not talking about the rich standing on peoples’ heads. Harris wants to bring grocery prices down, but doesn’t mention the consolidation of ownership of supermarkets to something like four companies owning 80-90% of supermarkets? Really?
Um, sorry, what was my point?
I always take a moment to look at your work, Terry, and too often for my own scheduling, that moment turns into a full-bore read out.
So, thanks?
Hi David. I do agree that sane-washing isn't necessarily failing to report Trump's antics, but it could also be reporting it as normal or unremarkable. Also agree about the bipartisan nature of the BS.
Thanks for reading David and Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours up in the Berkshires!