The "sane washing" Trump argument

[Colonoscopy]

This has been making the rounds lately.

This argument seems to attack left leaning media. I don't think I buy the argument.

Obviously right leaning media does a terrible job highlighting his flaws. But to throw the NYT or WaPo under the bus? I've subscribed to the Atlantic for a while now (left leaning) and probably read more NYT articles in the Trump era than anything else.

They've covered Trump flaws/news almost to the point of excess. I think we're to the point of intellectually analyzing him for sport at this point. (agree there is always the simple news stuff -- what dumb thing has he done now)

Anyway....

Roughly speaking, we seem to have 4 tiers of story:

1) Opinion
2) Analysis (the difference between this and opinion is hard to figure out at times)
3) Who/what/where/when/why + a bit of analysis and or context. (would point out Trump lies, history of behavior pertaining to topic etc etc)
4) Who/what/where/when. Basically... "this happened today"

What exactly is the ask here? Items 1 through 3 frequently take Trump to task. If you're a reader of NYT, no way in heck you miss this.

So we're left with 4. I guess the argument is that we can't have any item 4s with Trump?

I'm all for an adversarial media -- and I think we do a decent job here, although it depends on the slant of the news org, obviously -- but I'm not sure I want an activist media. Or at least that I want every media source to be that.

You can't mention Trump in an article without reference to his myriad of flaws? I'm unconvinced.

Further more... what would it change if left leaning sources always did this? The vast majority of Trump supporters aren't getting these bits of news or arguments anyway.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

This has been making the rounds lately.

This argument seems to attack left leaning media. I don't think I buy the argument.

 

[Bonerfarts]

This has been making the rounds lately.

This argument seems to attack left leaning media. I don't think I buy the argument.

Obviously right leaning media does a terrible job highlighting his flaws. But to throw the NYT or WaPo under the bus? I've subscribed to the Atlantic for a while now (left leaning) and probably read more NYT articles in the Trump era than anything else.

They've covered Trump flaws/news almost to the point of excess. I think we're to the point of intellectually analyzing him for sport at this point. (agree there is always the simple news stuff -- what dumb thing has he done now)

Anyway....

Roughly speaking, we seem to have 4 tiers of story:

1) Opinion
2) Analysis (the difference between this and opinion is hard to figure out at times)
3) Who/what/where/when/why + a bit of analysis and or context. (would point out Trump lies, history of behavior pertaining to topic etc etc)
4) Who/what/where/when. Basically... "this happened today"

What exactly is the ask here? Items 1 through 3 frequently take Trump to task. If you're a reader of NYT, no way in heck you miss this.

So we're left with 4. I guess the argument is that we can't have any item 4s with Trump?

I'm all for an adversarial media -- and I think we do a decent job here, although it depends on the slant of the news org, obviously -- but I'm not sure I want an activist media. Or at least that I want every media source to be that.

You can't mention Trump in an article without reference to his myriad of flaws? I'm unconvinced.

Further more... what would it change if left leaning sources always did this? The vast majority of Trump supporters aren't getting these bits of news or arguments anyway.

There is always CSPAN. I don't think CSPAN are raking in the ad dollars. Our media has the same free market capital structure as any other industry. Unfortunately 1-3 gets the views and clicks and 4 doesn't. Hence CNN and Foxnews making the most money and having the most influence.

 

[Huey Grey]

I read NBCNews, ABCNews, CBSNews, and Reuters everyday. They all sane wash him. I even listen to NPR every morning on the way to work. Even they sane wash him. It's so bad that if they do get honest about him, I get surprised.

 

[Colonoscopy]

There is always CSPAN. I don't think CSPAN are raking in the ad dollars. Our media has the same free market capital structure as any other industry. Unfortunately 1-3 gets the views and clicks and 4 doesn't. Hence CNN and Foxnews making the most money and having the most influence.

I'm not complaining about the NYT or the like here. Just saying that the criticism of them on this issue doesn't make much sense.

My position is that they've done a pretty good job on Trump.

 

[Colonoscopy]

I read NBCNews, ABCNews, CBSNews, and Reuters everyday. They all sane wash him. I even listen to NPR every morning on the way to work. Even they sane wash him. It's so bad that if they do get honest about him, I get surprised.

What exactly do you mean by that?

I offered up what I thought you meant by that, which would be reporting (that included Trump in the story) that only offered up who/what/where/when.

 

[Huey Grey]

I'm not complaining about the NYT or the like here. Just saying that the criticism of them on this issue doesn't make much sense.

My position is that they've done a pretty good job on Trump.

I don't read subscription outfits. But the free ones present him in largely ordinary ways. If any other candidate was this insane they would be all over them. But Trump? He mostly gets a free pass.

 

[BioHawk]

I read NBCNews, ABCNews, CBSNews, and Reuters everyday. They all sane wash him. I even listen to NPR every morning on the way to work. Even they sane wash him. It's so bad that if they do get honest about him, I get surprised.

They want so bad to not be called biased that they are afraid to call him out for this. To be fair, they did this with Biden too, to an extent. There were multiple op-eds calling for him to resign. The difference is with Trump he's basically doing it for the entire world to see whereas Biden was mostly behind closed doors.

 

[Huey Grey]

What exactly do you mean by that?

I offered up what I thought you meant by that, which would be reporting (that included Trump in the story) that only offered up who/what/where/when.

This is the front page of ABCNews. Just skimming the headlines you would have no idea that Trump gave such a ridiculously bad debate.

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

Your trusted source for breaking news, analysis, exclusive interviews, headlines, and videos at ABCNews.com

abcnews.go.com

 

[Colonoscopy]

I don't read subscription outfits. But the free ones present him in largely ordinary ways. If any other candidate was this insane they would be all over them. But Trump? He mostly gets a free pass.

They want so bad to not be called biased that they are afraid to call him out for this. To be fair, they did this with Biden too, to an extent. There were multiple op-eds calling for him to resign. The difference is with Trump he's basically doing it for the entire world to see whereas Biden was mostly behind closed doors.

You guys still seem to be missing my point.

It's the type of news offered up.

There is the type of news that would allow for analysis -- of which I've consumed lots of, and assume we all have.

And then there is the type of news that just reports "what happens" and doesn't offer analysis.

So what are you asking for? That some sources (that don't usually traffic in analysis) start doing it? That all these references to Trump always include some analysis?

 

[Colonoscopy]

This is the front page of ABCNews. Just skimming the headlines you would have no idea that Trump gave such a ridiculously bad debate.

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

Your trusted source for breaking news, analysis, exclusive interviews, headlines, and videos at ABCNews.com

abcnews.go.com

Looking at the page I see a mixture of non critical "what happened" and analysis where Trump is concerned. (fact checking, Trump's claims about trans operations, etc)

You seem to want this sort of media to prioritize Trump analysis. (and you think it should be negative here)

Quite frankly, I always thought ABC and Reuters and the like were supposed to play it this way.

And no, Trump isn't getting special treatment that others wouldn't.

 

[Huey Grey]

Looking at the page I see a mixture of non critical "what happened" and analysis where Trump is concerned. (fact checking, Trump's claims about trans operations, etc)

You seem to want this sort of media to prioritize Trump analysis. (and you think it should be negative here)

Quite frankly, I always thought ABC and Reuters and the like were supposed to play it this way.

And no, Trump isn't getting special treatment that others wouldn't.

To compare here's abc two days after Bidens debate. The two really aren't comparable. Headline that day was about questioning if Biden could bounce back from his rough night? And that it might take a miracle.

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

Your trusted source for breaking news, analysis, exclusive interviews, headlines, and videos at ABCNews.com

web.archive.org

 

[BioHawk]

You guys still seem to be missing my point.

It's the type of news offered up.

There is the type of news that would allow for analysis -- of which I've consumed lots of, and assume we all have.

And then there is the type of news that just reports "what happens" and doesn't offer analysis.

So what are you asking for? That some sources (that don't usually traffic in analysis) start doing it? That all these references to Trump always include some analysis?

I get your point and I generally agree with it. I wasn't really addressing it though. What do I want? When Trump starts acting insane like just making up shit out of thin air they quit treating it like this is just a normal thing that all politicians do. Now, they actually have done a decent job of doing this with the eating pets stuff, but this should have been happening 9 years ago. Like when he promised that Mexico would pay for the wall, for instance.

 

[Joes Place]

I read NBCNews, ABCNews, CBSNews, and Reuters everyday. They all sane wash him. I even listen to NPR every morning on the way to work. Even they sane wash him. It's so bad that if they do get honest about him, I get surprised.

Indeed

They consistently try to "tone down" what they THINK he's saying, vs what he ACTUALLY said.

 

[ThorneStockton]

I don't feel strongly about the sane-washing allegations, in terms of it's degree or pervasiveness, certainly a hard thing to judge or measure. And as noted, it's important to identify analysis vs reporting. That said, it does feel like the absurdity, norm-shattering, bat-shit crazy, type of stuff that Trump is prone isn't always reported as such. Some of it is likely because Trump has normalized it over 9 years, but I suspect there's some moderation in the language in an effort to avoid the accusations or appearance of bias.


I think it has commonality with Okrent's law. Link: https://brainlenses.substack.com/p/okrents-law

The sane-washing is sort of like this excerpt, except instead of lies, the insanity.

Reporting on demonstrable lies told by politicians without pointing out that they are demonstrable lies, then, is often the result of reporters trying to avoid the appearance of bias against the lying politician.

The truth is that the politician is lying, but calling them a liar outright might seem, to that politician’s supporters, like unfair bias. Thus, the reporter—or the entity that employs them—may temper their reporting by presenting “both sides” of an argument, even when there’s only one legitimate side involved.

 

[sober_teacher]

I read NBCNews, ABCNews, CBSNews, and Reuters everyday. They all sane wash him. I even listen to NPR every morning on the way to work. Even they sane wash him. It's so bad that if they do get honest about him, I get surprised.

Maybe it’s semantics, but imo it’s more a matter of journalists being so numb to what they see/hear from Trump that how they reported him in the early days they don’t as much anymore because it takes a greater volume of ridiculous to register now.

 

[Colonoscopy]

I don't feel strongly about the sane-washing allegations, in terms of it's degree or pervasiveness, certainly a hard thing to judge or measure. And as noted, it's important to identify analysis vs reporting. That said, it does feel like the absurdity, norm-shattering, bat-shit crazy, type of stuff that Trump is prone isn't always reported as such. Some of it is likely because Trump has normalized it over 9 years, but I suspect there's some moderation in the language in an effort to avoid the accusations or appearance of bias.


I think it has commonality with Okrent's law. Link: https://brainlenses.substack.com/p/okrents-law

The sane-washing is sort of like this excerpt, except instead of lies, the insanity.

Reporting on demonstrable lies told by politicians without pointing out that they are demonstrable lies, then, is often the result of reporters trying to avoid the appearance of bias against the lying politician.

The truth is that the politician is lying, but calling them a liar outright might seem, to that politician’s supporters, like unfair bias. Thus, the reporter—or the entity that employs them—may temper their reporting by presenting “both sides” of an argument, even when there’s only one legitimate side involved.

I think normalization is part of the problem. And I'm sure there is some struggle with the Okrent law scenario you cited.

Was it a bigger deal, a bigger surprise to many people when Biden looked that bad in debate compared to a lying ranting Trump up on the debate stage? Of course it was. We've seen this from Trump many times before.

He operates via a different set of political physics that most everyone else, seemingly. That makes him incredibly hard to cover. And after a while it becomes a volume thing, trying to pick out what the big lies are vs the small, trying to figure out what to cover, trying to make sure you don't miss-step since you're already expecting and already know the man is a serial liar. Tougher to cover for sure.

I mean, he was probably the inspiration for the level of fact checking we now do. That was prominently placed on ABC's website along with other headlines.

But it's still not clear to me that the ABC's, the Reuters & etc are failing to cover him properly given their news model.

 

[Colonoscopy]

I get your point and I generally agree with it. I wasn't really addressing it though. What do I want? When Trump starts acting insane like just making up shit out of thin air they quit treating it like this is just a normal thing that all politicians do. Now, they actually have done a decent job of doing this with the eating pets stuff, but this should have been happening 9 years ago. Like when he promised that Mexico would pay for the wall, for instance.

I feel like your cited items are always covered... just not by all media sources all the time.

It's like... how much time is Retuers supposed to spend taking politicians to task over their comments vs just reporting what they said.

 

[Colonoscopy]

To compare here's abc two days after Bidens debate. The two really aren't comparable. Headline that day was about questioning if Biden could bounce back from his rough night? And that it might take a miracle.

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

Your trusted source for breaking news, analysis, exclusive interviews, headlines, and videos at ABCNews.com

web.archive.org

To me that's Trump operating with a different set of political physics. He's ranted and said a million different ridiculous things -- we're used to it from him. For Trump to come out in the debate and do that was basically expected. The Biden stumble wasn't. I think that's a big part of it.

But if you look at ABC's post election page on the 11th they featured prominently a couple Trump lies. Generally they always get covered. Somebody always links them here. Again... it's how you expect a given news source to operate.

 

[HROT]

He operates via a different set of political physics that most everyone else, seemingly. That makes him incredibly hard to cover. And after a while it becomes a volume thing, trying to pick out what the big lies are vs the small, trying to figure out what to cover, trying to make sure you don't miss-step since you're already expecting and already know the man is a serial liar. Tougher to cover for sure.

But that’s the game. He gets a different set of rules because he intentionally floods/gaslights.

Meandering Hannibal Lecter stories get condensed into ‘Former President Trump spoke on immigration’.

If Biden has mentioned ISIS leader ‘Abdul’ he’d be getting slammed with questions to the point his campaign would have to release a statement

 

[ThorneStockton]

I think normalization is part of the problem. And I'm sure there is some struggle with the Okrent law scenario you cited.

Was it a bigger deal, a bigger surprise to many people when Biden looked that bad in debate compared to a lying ranting Trump up on the debate stage? Of course it was. We've seen this from Trump many times before.

He operates via a different set of political physics that most everyone else, seemingly. That makes him incredibly hard to cover. And after a while it becomes a volume thing, trying to pick out what the big lies are vs the small, trying to figure out what to cover, trying to make sure you don't miss-step since you're already expecting and already know the man is a serial liar. Tougher to cover for sure.

I mean, he was probably the inspiration for the level of fact checking we now do. That was prominently placed on ABC's website along with other headlines.

But it's still not clear to me that the ABC's, the Reuters & etc are failing to cover him properly given their news model.

It's a strange timeline. In the past, if someone was as nutty and absurd as Trump, they wouldn't have lasted - and accordingly have been reported on - so long. It's like the all time interceptions leaders are great quarterbacks, the shitty ones don't last long enough to accumulate such stats. Yet, Trump has.