Part of the Series
Moyers and Company
When I saw that Donald Trump has charged unnamed “media” with “want[ing] debate moderators to ‘go after’ him,” my mind reeled back in time.
High-ranking among the shall-we-dance rituals performed every four years by journalists and the presidential campaigns is the degrading game of setting expectations. In 2000, when George W. Bush ran for president against Al Gore, his campaign put out the line that Gore was such an accomplished debater it would be all Bush could do to hold his own. When Bush succeeded in speaking, at times, in whole sentences, he was deemed to have done “better than expected,” which counted as a win in the debased horse race terms to which we have become accustomed.
To see more stories like this, visit Moyers & Company at Truthout.
In one of those debates, Gore was widely considered to have committed a gaffe when he walked up to Bush and asked him, ineptly, to take a position on a Patients’ Bill of Rights (“Dingell-Norwood”) then before Congress. The following Sunday, on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos gamely tried to clarify what Gore had so awkwardly been talking about, an issue that actually could have a direct impact on voters’ lives. But those masters of insider mirth, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson, made hay over how funny “Dingell-Norwood” sounded. The major impression they left: Gore is a klutz. That fit their narrative: The helpless wonky Al Gore is roped in by the Beltway. Not a guy you could sit down and start a war with.
A refreshing number of reporters have, in recent days, woken up to Trump’s serial lies, his changes of subject, his refusal to answer straight questions. They’ve shown they understand that they have to keep hammering, even at his enablers, to get any shot at a straight answer. On Sunday’s “This Week”, Martha Raddatz unrelentingly kept after Mike Pence as he dissembled — hell, lied — about Trump’s birther obsession.
RADDATZ: We counted since April of 2011, and that’s the year that Barack Obama gave his long form birth certificate from Hawaii. We counted 67 times where Donald Trump tweeted or retweeted messages questioning his birthplace. He has kept this going. He has been a leader in this birther movement.
PENCE: Well, and I know there’s news reports that trace this birther movement all the way back to Hillary Clinton’s campaign back in 2008.
RADDATZ: You believe that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement.
PENCE: Look, I’ll let the facts speak for themselves.
RADDATZ: Well, no, I want to talk about the facts. What’s the proof of that?
The L word even showed up in a Times headline: “Donald Trump Clung to ‘Birther’ Lie for Years, and Still Isn’t Apologetic.” The article introduced thusly, by Michael Barbaro, was technically a “news analysis,” not a “straight news” piece. But still, progress is progress. The Washington Post’s Eric Wemple picked up the cue and ran with it:
Journalism is now examining how it should treat Donald Trump. Shouldn’t we signal to readers high up in stories that he’s a liar? That he’s a racist? The answer from The New York Times today appears to be yes. “Unwinding a Lie: Donald Trump and ‘Birtherism,'” reads the headline of a story written by reporter Michael Barbaro. If The New York Times had ever before published such a strong headline in its news section, this lifelong reader surely missed it.
“I didn’t write the headline, but I like it,” says Joe Kahn, the Timesman who is now moving from three titles — assistant editor for international, international editor and co-leader of the NYT Global group — to a single, more exalted one — managing editor. “That piece shows that where there is a clear falsehood, that covering it in an entirely traditional way in which the headline appears to indicate a wide range of possibilities and quote a wide range of sources and step back with the premise that you’re going to let the reader decide for himself or herself … didn’t feel quite right.”
Interviewing New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on the same subject, CNN’s Jake Tapper once again stepped up as recounted in a story on the network’s website:
Though Trump had been asked whether he now believes Obama was born in the United States as recently as 2016 and hadn’t affirmed that position, Christie refuted [they meant rebutted — TG] Tapper’s questioning saying: “It’s just not true that he kept it up for five years.”
Tapper: “Sure he did.”
Christie: “It’s simply not true.”
Tapper: “It is true.”
Christie: “No, Jake. It wasn’t like he was talking about it on a regular basis … And when the issue was raised, he made very clear the other day what his position is.”
If you believe Chris Christie, I have a George Washington Bridge you might want to stop traffic on.
As for Trump, his game is crystal clear. It’s the game of the thug. He’s going way beyond Bush’s 2000 conventional exercise in expectation-lowering. What you’ll see and hear isn’t about his performance; it’s about the moderators’: He aims to pre-insulate himself from serious questioning. He’s whining already: They hit me first! They’re in the tank! Bring back Matt Lauer! If a moderator corrects a falsehood, points out that he hasn’t answered a question, asks him to do so — all of which they are obliged to do if they care about truth — he’ll accuse them of doing Hillary Clinton’s work for her. If they toss him anything but a cream puff, he’ll say he told us so, those disgusting reporters have rigged the game against him.
Trump is showing his hand. He’s trying to cow journalists out of doing their work. The moderators will decide whether he runs away with the game.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.