Nothing brings out the rot in journalism like an election. Especially one with Donald “Felon” Trump, the Jason Voorhees of American politics. 2024 has been a banner year for journalism, in the way that 1865 was a banner year for Washington DC’s Ford Theatre.
First of all, Trump being the GOP nominee is nothing short of insane. The guy is literally a convicted felon out on bail, running for President. He has been adjudicated responsible for a rape and keeps boasting that he was able to stack the Supreme Court just enough (including by the appointment of a guy who was credibly accused of sexual assault — who only squeaked by because Trump literally interfered with the FBI investigation into the assault allegation). And somehow some women want to vote for him. Also he literally led an insurrection where participants raided the US Capitol in order to stop the official recognition of the 2020 election AND TRY TO PHYSICALLY SEIZE THE VICE-PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO HANG HIM. But somehow none of this disqualifies him from becoming President. You literally would not be allowed to volunteer to chaperone schoolchildren with a record like that, but apparently you could end up having the nuclear launch codes.
The question that’s been on my mind all year.
This photo courtesy of the Whiskey River Soap Co. (not an affiliate link)
So that’s one factor. But, like a green teenager getting ready to watch his first horror film, let’s put the “unbelievableness” (to coin a phrase) of the situation aside and accept the Donald Trump candidacy as just what it is. Because to Americans it makes sense somehow.
Seriously, I believe that “it is what is it” is the most sensical explanation we’re going to get for that.
What is harder to accept at this point in history is the treatment Trump has received this year in the American news media. It’s frankly been so startling that a new term has been invented specifically to describe it. Journalists have been sanewashing the Donald Trump candidacy.
What is “sanewashing”, you ask? Think of it this way, when a company tries to manufacture some ecological credentials for itself that it does not deserve, it’s known as “greenwashing”. When another goes through some performative display of putting a little LGBTQ+ flag on the front door but also supports anti-queer initiatives, that’s known as “rainbow-washing”. And when Donald Trump delivers a pointless, rambling series of non-sequiturs in front of an audience, for example telling us how he’d rather be electrocuted than eaten by sharks (literally he did that during a campaign rally), and the press completely fails to point out how utterly insane his speech was, that’s called “sanewashing”.
Sadly this term was invented too late to be included in Webster’s annual list of new words for 2024. But boy, did the American corporate news media ever make that new word necessary. Because Trump’s campaign appearances have steadily been growing in sheer madness. The shark vs battery story was probably the mildest example of insanity in Trump’s 2024 speeches. On one notable occasion he started talking about Hannibal Lecter from Manhunter/Silence of the Lambs/Hannibal (movie and TV). He now desperately tries to make people believe that it’s a reference to people who come into the USA, but the first time he brought it up what he was saying was “The late, great Hannibal Lecter. He’s a wonderful man. He oftentimes would have a friend for dinner… But Hannibal Lecter. Congratulations. The late, great Hannibal Lecter.”
And how was that covered in the mainstream press? As much as they could the corporate press ignored that part of the speech. That Hannibal speech was on May 11th, and this was the headline of the New York Times article on that rally the next day: “Away From the Confines of a Courtroom, Trump Rallies Beachside at the Jersey Shore”.
Although this phenomenon can be seen happening throughout the corporate press in 2024, it must be noted that in the eyes of many the New York Times is the biggest offender when it comes to sanewashing. For some reason I cannot fathom, Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger has consistently been attempting to pick fights with the Democratic party in general this year, and really has done as much as it can to make Donald Trump look like a man who’s not in the throes of frontotemporal dementia. Or senility. Or tertiary syphilis. I mean, Trump still steadfastly refuses to provide his medical records so it’s really impossible to tell exactly what the fsck is wrong with him. Of course this also means that no condition can reasonably be excluded to explain his bizarre behavior.
The most egregious single example of sanewashing I’ve seen was after Trump’s speech on October 7th in which he literally said that immigrants were bringing bad genes to America. If you don’t know, that’s literally what the Nazis were saying in the 1930s. How did the New York Times cover it? “Trump’s Long Fascination With Genes and Bloodlines Gets New Scrutiny”. I sh*t you not. That being said, this headline was so wildly inappropriate to describe what had gone on at the rally that it started a wave of backlash against the sanewashing phenomenon. And it forced a lot of people to take a long, hard look at Trump’s performance at his rallies. Not coincidentally, Trump has visibly been declining steadily since that time. Even Republicans can’t entirely sidestep the question “wtf is wrong with Donald” anymore — except the MAGA cultists of course — and it’s leading to bizarre moments.
Like just a couple of days ago when, during a Q&A hosted by noted puppy murder enthusiast Kristi Noem (Governor of South Dakota), Donald decided that he no longer felt like answering questions, or giving a speech. So he had his sound guy play some tunes while he just stood there attempting to dance with moves that sometimes looked more like he was about to fall over. There were a couple of people in his audience who had heat-related emergencies, but Trump was just on stage “dancing” for almost FORTY MINUTES. And then he just left.
The New York Times headline? “Trump Bobs His Head to Music for 30 Minutes in Odd Town Hall Detour”. Yes, an “odd town hall detour”. That’s kinda like saying that the “meat” in Jeffrey Dahmer’s fridge “raised questions”. Or, to craft a headline going back to the Lincoln thing, “Showing of ‘Our American Cousin’ ends early due to commotion in the audience”.
I could go on and on about this, but chances are if you’re reading this you’re well aware of many examples already. The real question is, why is the press doing this? The answer may surprise you! (or not, it all depends).
I post at Bluesky, it’s been my go-to social network since Elon took Twitter in the direction of full Nazi. Skeeters (Bluesky users) have the not unreasonable view that media outlets engage in sanewashing because they like Donald Trump and want him to win.
I think it’s not that simple, although I can see many of the arguments in favor of that opinion.
In my humble opinion, this is a byproduct of the corporate obsession with audience engagement.
Have you recently noticed how much Google search sucks nowadays compared with how it was about 10 years ago? You’re not alone. Journalist (and skeeter) Ed Zitron looked into what happened in the past few years at Google. According to him, the search experts were reaching a pretty extreme level of efficiency, which you would think is a good thing. But that’s because you’re not Google CEO Sundar Pichai. You see, Google’s actual money-maker is ads. So, if you’re a tech CEO with a serious case of consultant brain, you can only reach one conclusion — that if the user finds what they’re looking for on the first try, that’s a bad thing. There’s only one ad impression there. But if you have to make the user make several queries using increasing precision, then you’ve served 3, 4, 5 impressions. Isn’t that better? Let that sink in. This is Sundar Pichai’s legacy at Google — fscking up your search results so they can show you more ads and charge more to the companies that use Google ads. This is considered “greater engagement”. I am absolutely serious.
Remember when they warned you about social media: if you’re being offered something for free, then what you’re getting is not the end product. You are the end product. And you’re the one being sold by one party to another. That’s how social media companies make money.
Why am I bringing this up? Because media companies, including the news media, are doing the same thing. From a business point of view, they are using “engagement” to sell their brand to the public, and to sell ad impressions.
Ok you ask, how is that related to sanewashing Trump’s campaign? As with every election year in the USA, 2024 is seeing a huge boost in people watching news stations (OTA or on cable) and visiting news sites, many doing so several times a day, That’s great news for these outlets. They get to sell more ads, they get to keep their brands within viewers’ attention spans. But this only works as long as the Presidential race remains tight. Or, more realistically, as long as the Presidential race *appears* to remain tight. If one candidate is running away with the lead, the suspense disappears. People tune out of the news cycle. Engagement drops. Publishers are now unhappy. Revenues decline.
But given the premise of an improbably tight race, viewers will flock to their information sources, hit the refresh button like it owes them money, the brand remains uppermost in their minds, and lots of ad impressions are delivered. Publishers are now free to get back on the champagne while lighting large cigars with flaming Benjamins. And that’s why we’re being sold this idea of a an impossibly tight horse race. Sure, very rich owners (and upper management) of media companies probably stand to gain more in terms of tax cuts from a Trump presidency, but otherwise it’s really hard to make a case as to why media outlets somehow love Trump. The guy is talking about mobilizing troops against Americans just for disagreeing with him, and historically that eventually includes everyone who isn’t Donald Trump. Being in Donald’s good graces is something that’s as fleeting as an erection at a strip club when you’re really drunk. And while I was tempted to say that Trump is an entertaining character — a carnival barker in fact — and that journalists see coverage potential in that, the fact that they’re downplaying his “being entertaining” shows that they’re about as sick of it as the rest of us.
I think we’re being sold a lie. I don’t think the Presidential race is that close at all. I think that Harris will overwhelmingly win the popular vote, for a start, and that Trump will maybe get 40% of the vote. Certainly not significantly more than that. I believe that REAL polls — the private ones conducted for the political campaigns — reflect this, which is why Donald Trump is looking more like a corpse with every passing day. But American news organizations can’t tell us the truth at this time, because as with retailers at Christmas and pumpkin growers in October, news orgs rely on this time to make as much engagement as possible happen. There’s no chance of achieving that when the race is a blowout.
As a bonus, there is also a good and virtuous reason for the news media to make the race appear closer than it really is. In an election situation, if you feel that your side is winning big, you will simply not be motivated to go vote. After all, why bother with that when “your side” is going to win? However if the race is razor thin, which is what we’re being sold right now, there is an increased feeling that yes, one vote can make a difference, and it’s definitely worth taking time in your day to go to the polls. It’s certainly not a major motivation for news orgs, but it’s a silver lining to keep in mind as you keep looking at what has been a very frustrating year in news coverage for those of us in the reality-based community.
Anyway that was as close to a TED talk as I’m ever likely to give, if you’re still reading I trust y’all enjoyed that, and I hope you see the sense of what I’m saying.