The Wayward Press Part III
The definition of insanity
My God, when will the media learn?
Donald Trump made 30,573 documented false or misleading statements in his first term.[i] That’s an astounding average of 21 a day. He kept the momentum up on the first day of his second term, with 20.[ii] Look, if his lips move, he’s lying.
So why on earth would the media run headlines touting a ceasefire between Israel and Iran just because Trump said it happened?
I suppose there are two reasons. One is that the media still want to be first rather than right. It’s true that Trump said it, so if you say he said it, that’s true. But it was not true that there was a ceasefire, as the continued bombing on both sides demonstrated. Israel never confirmed it. Trump announced it because he wants a Nobel Prize and thinks he can bully anybody into anything.
What reporters would do, if they were smart, is to say, “Wait a minute.” They should hold their fire, check with the parties to see if what Trump said was true, and delve into Trump’s motivation for saying it—which has nothing to do with whether it’s true. He doesn’t care. He just wants it to sound good and make him look good (the definition of a bullshitter).[iii] The better headline would be Trump lies again, this time about his unconstitutional military bombing raid.
The media needed the same approach for Trump’s claim that U.S. bombing obliterated Iran’s nuclear capability. It doesn’t take a genius or defense expert to know that a damage assessment takes time, and it was impossible to know the outcome just hours after the bombs dropped. If reporters need to print something about the results of the bombing mission, don’t lead with what Trump said. Start with what was dropped, how the Iranians moved their uranium, the fact that’s it’s too early to have a conclusive damage assessment, and Trump, in typical fashion, made what is likely to be a vastly inflated assertion about the success of the bombing. Provide at least a little context and push down in the story his fatuous boasts, sexy as they are. Under no circumstances should what he said be the headline to bolster the notion it’s true.
Apparently knowing he has no credibility, especially since U.S. intelligence is inconclusive, Trump is relying on Israeli intelligence. But it’s important to note two things about Israeli intelligence. One is that Israel acknowledges it has not seen what’s underground, so its conclusions also are inconclusive. The second is that Israeli intelligence, at least as funneled through Benjamin Netanyahu, has not been particularly accurate. In 1992, Netanyahu predicted Iran would have a bomb in three to five years--and said the same thing three years later.[iv] Huh? And in 2012, he started to say Iran was just months away. Based on their records, when Trump and Netanyahu say the same thing, you know it’s not true.
The other reason the media would report what Trump said is out of respect for him as the President. That presumes he is a normal President. He isn’t. He doesn’t deserve the respect for his pronouncements that previous presidents got because there is no reason to believe him.
Trump breaks the law and violates the constitution every day. That rarely is in the stories. Sometimes there’s a sidebar about legal experts questioning whether Trump had the authority to do what he did, from deportations without a hearing to refusing to spend appropriated funds. The media don’t have to use the word authoritarian in every story even if it’s accurate. But stories can note Trump has no legal basis for what he’s doing.
The bottom line: don’t treat Trump like a typical President. Don’t jump every time he utters something. Think. Report. And do both before you write.[v] You don’t get a second chance to leave readers or viewers with a first impression. Trumpeting what Trump says in the hope of informing an audience never works. Repeating behavior time after time and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
If the media follow Journalism 101 and do some reporting before writing, they will have better, more informed, and informative stories. That’s the job of the media. Please, my former colleagues for whom I have enormous respect, do your goddamn job!!!
Crock toiled in journalism for three decades for The Associated Press, The Palm Beach Post, The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Investopedia, and TheStreet.com. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, beststory.ca, World Affairs Journal, and Northwestern Journal of International Affairs. He has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, Court TV, CNNfn, CSPAN, Fox News, and National Public Radio’s To the Point, On Point, and Here and Now. Crock holds a B.A. in political science and a J.D. from Columbia and an M.S.J. from Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism.
[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump
[ii] https://www.indiatoday.in/world/us-news/story/era-fact-check-begins-ten-lies-day-one-donald-trump-day-1-january-20-panama-canal-immigration-electronic-vehicle-2667890-2025-01-21
[iii] https://archive.org/details/on-bullshit-by-harry-frankfurt
[iv] https://qudsnen.co/decades-of-deadlines-netanyahus-long-history-of-claiming-iran-is-just-about-to-get-a-nuclear-bomb/
[v] This especially applies when he goes off on a rant that raises questions about his cognitive ability. The media wrote about Biden’s cognitive condition—mostly when he was out of office. That was a legitimate story. It’s a far more critical story when the guy who is losing it in in office.
Hi Stan,
Another winner of an essay.
To my mind and experience, journalists set an example and set the standard for thinking clearly about issues. At least they used to. Being able to parse out an issue and communicate it to the reader was a skill and, done well, something to aspire to.
My best, Dick Stevenson
Yes! Stan. And the fact that the Def Sec worked for Fox and his hitting reporters for asking questions should be causing riots in the streets. Good column.