By Kindler
The way in which mainstream media makes Trump’s endless outrages sound reasonable – brilliantly branded “sanewashing” by Aaron Rupar – is something that many people still can’t see or understand. So, I decided to dissect a recent Washington Post article to make clear how the tricks of the journalistic trade are bent to this purpose.
I’m gifting this article from Friday, 11/30 – Trump says he will replace FBI Director Wray with loyalist Kash Patel – to outline how the dirty deed is done. To be sure, there have since been other WaPo articles or op-eds providing more context, information, perspective, etc. on this story. But potentially doing better in other articles is not a defense against failing to properly inform readers in any particular piece.
My goal is to lay bare the (witch)craft of sacrificing clear descriptions of the facts in favor of superficially “fair and balanced” pieces that end up favoring the interests of a man who has shown time and time again that he doesn’t deserve any benefit of the doubt. The result of this approach to journalism Is the most unfit president in US history being not only elected but re-elected.
Because, according to what I read in the prominent and influential Washington Post, Trump can’t be that bad, right? Here are a few of the techniques that were not hard to find in this article:
Lack of balance, context and fact checking
In an article with 24 paragraphs, I counted 9, or over one-third, which quoted Trump’s or Patel’s words allowing them to spread their propaganda almost completely unchallenged (e.g., “Kash is a brilliant lawyer, investigator, and ‘America First’ fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American People.”)
I could only find a single example in which the authors challenged or fact-checked these claims in the same paragraph, in a reference to “Trump’s false claims that Biden stole the 2020 election”. But Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election is the media’s favorite exception to the rule – the one example the media tends to use over and over again to try to prove that it does push back on him, even as they let literally thousands more lies go by largely unchallenged.
For example, once again, Trump is quoted dismissing the investigation of his campaign’s many suspicious contacts with Russian operatives, and his aggressive efforts to cover these contacts up, as a “hoax”, with absolutely zero pushback on this shameless lie.
In contrast to the paragraphs quoting Trump or Patel, there were none quoting their critics, other than one word in quotes – “Asked about former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe saying no part of the FBI would be ‘safe’ with Patel in a leadership role at the agency, Patel said those accusations were baseless.” – which is just used a setup to allow Patel another paragraph to defend himself.
Watered-down language that tones down the seriousness of the situation
Many examples of this, the favorite sanewashing technique of the New York Times and other mainstream media stalwarts, e.g.:
We are told that nominations like this one are “aimed at putting [Trump’s] political allies in key positions where officials and agencies had contradicted or angered him in the past.” But we’re not just talking about some sort of policy contradiction or personality spat here, but rather about an out-of-control would-be authoritarian demanding “revenge and retribution” against those who had the courage to challenge his crimes, his insane ideas and his efforts to shred the Constitution. Failing to properly describe the danger here does a grave disservice to the Post’s readers.
The article states that “Trump has repeatedly taken aim at norms and institutions during his political career.” Now, think about this obscurantist wording. Lots of people “take aim at institutions”, looking to reform this or that agency, bureau, etc. That’s obviously not what’s going on here. No, we are talking about an effort to gut an agency that serves many important law enforcement needs (despite its flaws, which could use the time and attention of actual reformer, not arsonists), in order to turn it into a weapon to be wielded by an out-of-control president against his perceived enemies.
It is even more meaningless to say that Trump “takes aim at norms”. I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer took aim at the norm that you shouldn’t eat people, but I doubt the Post would ever refer to his acts in such a blasé way.
Patel is described as “a vociferous defender who has echoed [Trump’s] criticisms of what both men call the ‘deep state.’” But the Post provides no context for these “criticisms”, not mentioning that what really pissed Trump off was that criminal investigators investigated his crimes and prosecutors tried to prosecute him for them. The article makes no effort to inform the reader that all this “deep state” blather is just hype to justify Trump’s planned revenge and retribution rampage with a scary conspiracy theory.
The Post continually describes the nominee as a “staunch loyalist”. The term does not do justice to the situation. Per Merriam-Webster’s Thesaurus, here are a few synonyms that better capture Patel’s relationship to Trump: flunky, sycophant, bootlicker, toady, suck-up, henchman, brownnoser, stooge, worshipper, lapdog.
Too harsh? Okay, then let’s at least consider: minion, acolyte, disciple, apparatchik, adherent, yes-man and such – to indicate that we are not talking about normal, everyday loyalty here, such as most nominees have to those who appoint them, but of a disturbingly cult-like devotion, the type shown not to an elected official but to a king or dictator.
Missing critical information and context
I would note that the word “conspiracy” does not appear once in this story even though Patel is a notorious spreader of conspiracy theories about every effort to investigate, challenge or question Trump.
Other outlets did a much better job describing the crazy that is Kash Patel. The AP, in its initial story on the nomination, included lots of unflattering but important details like:
“Patel, who at the time of the riot was chief of staff to the then-acting defense secretary, testified that Trump had pre-emptively authorized 10,000 to 20,000 troops to deploy days before the attack. But a Colorado court later found that Patel was ‘not a credible witness’ on the topic.”
Yeah, whether we should allow someone who would lie about (or at least fudge) material facts in a court of law in charge of the nation’s premier law enforcement agency is at least a question the press ought to tee up for discussion.
The AP also raises important conflict of interest issues, namely that Patel “has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from consulting for Trump-related entities, including a political action committee and the company that owns Truth Social.”
In short, the Post failed the test of informing the electorate of what’s going on in this dire situation representing a fundamental threat to U.S. democracy and the rule of law. To wrap up, here are a few lessons that I hope any reporters or editors will take away from this situation to finally, someday do better:
- Use strong language to convey the seriousness of the situation.
- Provide context needed to inform readers.
- Provide balance, quoting all sides, not just one.
- Never shuck your responsibility to fact check in the moment of reporting – if you don’t, who will?
Please check out my Substack and subscribe for free.
Sign up for the Blue Virginia weekly newsletter
