Trump’s popularity was in major part due to the fact that he branded himself as an outsider, coming in to shake up Washington. The op-ed notes that such a message is nothing new - in fact, most first-time candidates campaign on precisely that slogan, “I’m the outsider who will shake up Washington big-time” - but then, once elected, promptly become the sort of milquetoast insider politician they formerly railed against, leading their voters to feel “betrayed.” But when Trump came to town, the media and establishment attacked him ferociously, which boosted Trump’s image among his supporters because they thought, “For once there’s a candidate who actually remains an outsider when he gets to Washington and doesn’t become one of the insiders.”
TL;DR; if the media and establishment wanted to take down Trump, they should have made him look like yet another Beltway insider, not some maverick outsider.
Eh, you mean they reported on what he said and did.
Yeah, I can see how someone who doesn’t understand a thing about how our country and government works, and/or wants to see it fail would see that as a good thing.
How would they have done that? It would take quite a bit of ignoring of reality and fabricating a new one in order to do so.
This also makes the assertion that the media and the establishment wanted to “take down” Trump, which is in itself a bit of ignoring of reality.
We thought we were helping to minimize the threats Trump posed to the system, but the very vehemence of our rejection might actually have increased his power.
I mean, sure. Journalists may have had (and still have) a rosy eyed view of their contributions, but:
a) They were necessary and have slowly convinced sane Americans that Trump is toxic
b) In Trump’s eyes any criticism is an attack and his supporters buy whatever spin he puts on things.
I disagree that it’s a good piece. It has a narrow focus on one single cause and ignores all the other causes of the consequences, and it offers no thoughts on other possible choices.
The fundamental problem is, it’s really very hard to argue with someone who’s using motivated reasoning.
The news were basically reporting the facts - Trump did and said a lot of stupid shit, and lied constantly. The result? “The media hates Trump! We’re going to love him even more!”
So let’s say the media decided to downplay Trump’s stupidity, or even pretend that it wasn’t stupidity. What’s the more likely response? “Gee, the media like him know, I guess I’ll hate him!” or, “Gee, the media is finally agreeing that he’s a genius, therefore we’re all geniuses for having voted for him, despite all those Poindexters telling us it was a bad idea!!!”
“Saying it like it is” and “owning the libs” worked hand-in-hand, and was like crack to his devoted followers, but I am not seeing how media covering all the crazy stuff TFG said and did as news gave him more power. There was so much stuff going on at any one time it was hard to focus - like an overflowing toilet, but rather than giving TFG more power, all the attention he created with “Saying it like it is” and “owning the libs” probably made him “feel” more powerful than he actually was. There is a difference between feeling powerful, and being powerful.
It is worth seeing what could be done better next time a wannabee fascist runs for office, but this is simply part of the “Blame everyone but those who actually supported Trump.” narrative that seems so popular these days.
It can be helpful if you are talking about what mistakes a candidate or the candidate’s direct operatives committed. If you are talking about “anything anyone anywhere ever said, including journalists, commentators, and every other random fool on the internet,” then you know it’s not sincere analysis.
I think a better analogy would be the Hunger Games. One of the Capitol’s advisors says that the way to defeat Katniss (a symbol of rebel resistance) is not to attack her, but rather, portray her as one of their own - the empire’s own, that is. Then the rebels would go from loving her to hating her.
Nothing related to the Hunger Games could make anything better, but I’ll bite.
So, do you think that if the media had portrayed Trump as a billionaire who lives in a gold splattered “apartment” several times larger than the average person’s home, it may have made his supporters not think of him as one of them?
More like, the media should have portrayed Trump as being another boring Washington insider who is all about “compromise, bipartisanship, being nice to Democrats” and “crossing the aisle.” That would infuriate his diehards.
How do you get all the media outlets to go along with this? You do realize that “the media” isn’t some monolithic entity, it is made of hundreds of news outlets and tens of thousands of journalists, each and every one of which would have to agree to this lie.
Are you seriously suggesting that the media should have engaged in a systematic campaign of lying about Trump in order to hurt him, and that that would have been effective?
That author is one of the most infuriating sort of never Trumpers, the sort that still somehow manage to blame Democrats for the republican party’s descent into insanity.
For one thing, I’m convinced that journalists — specifically those who cover politics — must keep a sharp focus on truth-seeking, not old-style performative neutrality. Does that mean we throw objectivity out the window? Of course not. We should be resolutely objective in the sense of seeking evidence and approaching subjects with an open mind. We should not, however, resort to taking everything down the middle, no matter what. Rather than, for example, having equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats (or conservatives and progressives) on every talk show, or devoting equal numbers of words to each side of a political argument, we should be thinking about what coverage serves the public best.
