NEW YORK — Nearly a decade into the Trump Era of politics, with less than a month until his third election day as the Republican presidential nominee, there is still shockingly little agreement among the media about how to cover Trump.

Are journalists “sanewashing” Trump, or are they falling to the “banality of crazy?” Should his rallies be televised as whole or not at all? To fact-check or not?

“If it wasn’t so serious, I would just be fascinated by everything,” said Parker Molloy, a media critic and the author of Substack’s The Present Age column. “If it didn’t have to do with who is going to be president, I would watch this and marvel at how difficult it is to cover one person who seems to challenge all of the rules of journalism.”

Long after Trump is gone, there will be books and studies written on him and the press. He has always been press-conscious and press-savvy, even as a celebrity builder in Manhattan who paid close attention to what tabloid gossip columns said about him. Most problems originate from Trump’s disregard for restrictions, his propensity to say outlandish and demonstrably false things, and his supporters’ tendency to believe him rather than those who report on him.

It’s even come full circle, with some experts now believing that the best approach to cover Trump is to give people more opportunities to hear what he says – the polar opposite of what was once popular opinion.

Molloy used the term “sanewashing” this fall to describe journalists’ tendency to launder some of Trump’s wilder or barely intelligible utterances to make them appear like the sensible pronouncements of a conventional politician. She cites CNN as an example, which distilled a Trump post on Truth Social about the “radical left” and “fake news” into a straight news story about the former president agreeing to face his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.

Sanewashing? The Banality Of Crazy? A Decade Into The Trump Era, Media Hasn’t Figured Him Out

At its finest, refining Trump generates a new narrative, she said. At its worst, it is misinformation.

Trump warned of the dangers posed by illegal immigrants during a rally in Wisconsin on the last weekend of September. “They will walk into your kitchen, they’ll cut your throat,” they’ll say. Michael Tomasky of The New Republic was astonished to see the phrase missing from The New York Times and Washington Post coverage, despite the fact that The Times underlined Trump’s vilification of undocumented immigrants and other media allusions to what Trump himself described as a dark speech.

“Trump constantly saying extreme, racist violent stuff can’t always be new,” Tomasky observed. “But it’s always reality. Is the press justified in disregarding reality just because it is not new?”

One potential reason the remark received little attention was because Trump, at the same rally, referred to Harris as “mentally disabled” without providing any evidence.

That remark was quickly mentioned on the ABC and CBS evening newscasts the next day, following criticism from two other Republicans and coverage of Hurricane Helene’s devastation and war in the Middle East. NBC’s “Nightly News” did not mention it at all.

In other words, Trump said something outlandish. What is new? More than sandwashing, political analyst Brian Klaas refers to it as the banality of insanity, in which journalists become accustomed to things Trump says that would be surprising from other candidates simply because they are desensitized to them.

Illuminating reporting about Trump rarely follows the trend of fast news reports that summarize daily occurrences. “This really serves the small group of news consumers that we would call news junkies, who follow the campaign day to day,” said Kelly McBride, senior vice president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank. “But it doesn’t help people decide how to vote, or understand the candidate better.”

Trump critics frequently complain about how the country’s major news outlets cover him. However, they sometimes disregard attempts to provide perspective on matters that affect them. In an article published Sunday, The Times, for example, employed a computer to compare Trump’s recent speeches to those from the past, and on September 9, the paper investigated doubts regarding Trump’s age and mental capacity. The Post has written about how Trump fails to mention his father’s Alzheimer’s disease while attacking others’ mental capacity and making false claims about a cognitive test he underwent. The Associated Press noted of Trump’s Wisconsin event that he “shifted from topic to topic so quickly that it was hard to keep track of what he meant at times.”

“Trump is a really difficult figure to cover because he challenges news media processes every day, and has for years,” The Times’s Maggie Haberman, one of Trump’s best-known chroniclers, told NPR last month. “The mechanisms… were not designed to deal with someone who frequently says things that are false or speaks incoherently. I believe the media has done a wonderful job of portraying who he is, what he says, and what he does.

Sanewashing? The Banality Of Crazy? A Decade Into The Trump Era, Media Hasn’t Figured Him Out

Instead, press critics may be frustrated because the work lacks the desired impact. “The people who don’t like or are infuriated by him cannot believe his success and would like the press to somehow persuade those who do like him that they are wrong,” said Tom Rosenstiel, a journalism professor at the University of Maryland. “And the press can’t do that.”

Fact-checking is a point of debate.
One of the key topics surrounding the three general election debates was how, or whether, television networks would fact-check the candidates live on air.

CNN did not cover Trump’s debate with President Joe Biden last spring. When ABC’s moderators corrected Trump four times during his September debate with Harris, the former president’s supporters were outraged. During the vice presidential debate, CBS News attempted to strike a balance and discovered how difficult it is to please everyone.

“F you CBS — how DARE YOU,” Megyn Kelly wrote on X after CBS briefly removed JD Vance’s microphone after correcting him on a comment concerning immigrants. Melanie McFarland, a media critic at Salon, argued that those who are best suited to pointing out reality “barely rose to that duty.”

The fact-checking sector flourished under Trump’s presidency, with the number of such websites increasing from 63 in 2016 to 79 in 2020, according to the Duke Reporters’ Lab. However, limits were also revealed: Republicans have stigmatized the process to the point where many Trump supporters either don’t believe individuals who attempt to determine what is real or incorrect, or don’t bother reading. Rosenstiel believes that simply pointing out when a politician is wrong is insufficient for daily reporting. They must clearly explain why.

Journalists, who rarely win popularity contests to begin with, watched their collective reputations collapse under Trump’s scathing insults.

Sanewashing? The Banality Of Crazy? A Decade Into The Trump Era, Media Hasn’t Figured Him Out

In the heady days of 2015, television news networks such as CNN aired extended coverage of Trump campaign rallies. It was entertaining. It boosted ratings. What harm could be caused?

Many eventually regretted their decision. Throughout his administration and beyond, non-Trump-friendly media sources have battled with the question of how much to show Trump unfiltered, and have yet to reach a definitive conclusion. CNN occasionally shows Trump at rallies, but rarely for extended periods of time.

However, in a step back to the future, some experts now believe it is best to let people hear what Trump has to say. Poynter’s McBride applauded The 19th for a child care report in which, unsatisfied by an attempt to clarify Trump’s beliefs with his campaign, the website merely printed a perplexing 365-word verbatim quotation from Trump when questioned about the matter.

While truth checks and context are important, there is value in presenting Trump as is. “Showing Trump at length is not sanewashing,” Rosenstiel added.

Molloy acknowledged to being surprised by the response to her original column on sanewashing. It could represent a desire to define the undefinable, to figure out what the news industry hasn’t been able to do after so long. She mentions politicians that attempt to emulate Trump but fail.

“They don’t have what makes him Donald Trump,” she went on: “People can see it as a sign of his intelligence, or as evidence of his insane behavior. It’s probably a combination of the two.”

SOURCE | AP

Washington — Trump Media,  The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will not hear an appeal from social media platform X about a search warrant acquired by prosecutors in the election meddling case against former President Donald Trump.

The justices did not explain their rationale, and there were no recorded dissents.

The firm, which was known as Twitter before being purchased by billionaire Elon Musk, claims a nondisclosure order that prevented it from informing Trump about the warrant obtained by special counsel Jack Smith’s team violated its First Amendment rights.

The business also claims Trump should have had an opportunity to exercise executive privilege. If not reined in, the government may employ similar tactics to intercept additional privileged communications, their lawyers contended.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Appeal From Elon Musk’s X Platform Over Warrant In Trump Case

Two neutral electronic privacy groups also joined in, urging the high court to hear the case on First Amendment grounds.

Prosecutors, however, claim that the corporation never shown that Trump utilized the account for official purposes, therefore executive privilege is not a problem. A lower court also determined that informing Trump could have compromised the current probe.

Trump utilized his Twitter account in the weeks preceding up to his supporters’ attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to spread false assertions about the election, which prosecutors claim were intended to create doubt in the democratic process.

The indictment describes how Trump used his Twitter account to encourage his followers to travel to Washington on Jan. 6, pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to reject the certification, and falsely claiming that the Capitol crowd, which battered police officers and destroyed glass, was peaceful.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Appeal From Elon Musk’s X Platform Over Warrant In Trump Case

That case is now moving forward following the Supreme Court’s verdict in July, which granted Trump full immunity from criminal prosecution as a former president.

The warrant arrived at Twitter amid quick changes implemented by Musk, who bought the company in 2022 and has since cut off most of its workforce, including those dedicated to combating disinformation and hate speech.

He also welcomed back a vast list of previously banned users, including Trump, and endorsed him for the 2024 presidential election.

SOURCE | AP

(VOR News) – Dr. Allan Lichtman, a notable presidential historian, has reiterated his forecast that Vice President Kamala Harris will emerge victorious in the presidential election of 2024, which will be contested against former President Donald Trump.

The election will take place in the United States of America. Specifically, the United States of America will serve as the location of the election. Concerns that a “October surprise” would have an impact on the outcome of the election have also been dispelled by him to the extent that he has been successful.

His prediction was made at the beginning of Kamala Harris September by Dr. Lichtman, a professor at American University who is well-known for accurately predicting nine out of the last ten elections that have taken place in the United States.

Kamala Harris is famous for reliably predicting election results.

“The October surprise is one of the greatest myths in American politics,” Dr. Lichtman said in a CNN interview with Michael Smerconish. This is what Dr. Lichtman said during the discussion. I have never revised my prediction in any way in response to an October surprise.

This is because the keys assess the overall strength of the government that is currently in power rather than being impacted by the events that will transpire during the campaign.

A group of thirteen characteristics that Dr. Lichtman employs in order to assess the viability of each contender for the presidency is referred to as the “keys,” and the term “keys” is used to refer to the characteristics that are being evaluated.

As a result of the allegations that he made in September, it appears that Kamala Harris is in a stronger position to gain eight of the thirteen keys, whereas Trump has only been able to get three of them.

The assertion that Dr. Lichtman made regarding the insignificance of “October surprises” is supported by precedents that have been formed throughout the course of history.

Such precedents have been established. According to a video that was taken from the television show “Access Hollywood” in the time leading up to the election in 2016, it was revealed that President Trump had made things that were not proper from a female perspective. Over the course of the weeks leading up to the election, the recording was accomplished.

In spite of the ramifications that led to Trump’s defeat, Lichtman predicted, based on his primary system, that Trump would ultimately emerge victorious in the election. This forecast was based on the assumption that Trump would emerge victorious in the election.

Over the course of his forty years of experience, Lichtman has never altered a prediction, and he does not intend to do so at this time.

Lightman won’t change Kamala Harris’ prediction.

According to the scholar, who identifies himself as a registered Democrat, he has properly predicted the outcome of each and every presidential election that has taken place since 1984. He claims that he has done this for every single election. It has been his experience that he has done this for each and every election.

On the other hand, there are members of the skeptical community who point out inconsistencies in his reasoning over the course of his career, particularly in relation to the elections that took place in the years 2000 and 2016.

Furthermore, Dr. Lichtman emphasized the need for voter involvement, despite the fact that he did not deviate from his unshakable prediction of Kamala Harris outcome regarding the election. The crowd was given his counsel, which was as follows: “The outcome is up to you, so get out there and vote,” he said.

Kamala Harris has a two-percentage point advantage in multi-candidate surveys, according to the most current Real Clear Politics aggregate, which displays the results of the survey.

This is in line with the findings of current polling data, which indicate that Mrs. Harris is at a tiny advantage over Donald Trump in the race for the presidency.

SOUREC: NDTV

SEE ALSO:

Scientists Awarded MicroRNA The Nobel Prize in Medicine.

US Inflation will Comfort a Fed Focused on Labor Markets.