David Corn: The Media Still Don't Know How to Cover Trump's Extremism
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/12/the-media-still-doesnt-know-how-to-cover-trumps-extremism/
The day after Donald Trump, a former president and the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, called for the termination of provisions of the US Constitution governing elections and essentially demanded that he be declared the rightful winner of the 2020 election, neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post ran a front-page story reporting Trumps call for ripping up portions of the nations founding document. No mention of this even appeared in the Times that day. Trumps unprecedented and dangerous statement was not deemed a big deal. This raised a question: Have major media players still not figured out how to cover Trumps extremism?
In recent weeks, Trump has dined with a Hitler fanboy and an antisemitic rapper, embraced the bonkers QAnon conspiracy theory (the world is run by an evil cabal of Democrats and elites who are baby-eating pedophiles and sex-traffickers!), and vowed he would, if returned to the White House, pardon the January 6 insurrectionists who assaulted the US Capitol. All of these developments have been reported on by the top news organizations. Yet the coverage does not seem to capture fully the danger posed by a wannabe-tyrant validating forces of hatred and irrationality. He won the GOP nomination and presidency once; he could do so again.
The first story each paper published on Trumps termination comment focused on the reaction to Trumps outlandish remark. The Times cooked up an odd formulation, telling readers that Trumps extraordinary antidemocratic statement
drew a degree of bipartisan condemnation over the weekend, with a flood from Democrats and a trickle from Republicans. The only GOP condemnation cited in the piece came from a newly elected GOP House member who said, Well, obviously I dont support that. This hardly amounted to even a trickle of Republican denouncement. More significant was that most Republicans had said nothing. And this was a rather conventional approach to a rather unconventional event, emphasizing the political angle not the remark itself and its implications.
The Washington Posts initial coverage similarly was a report on the White House blasting Trump for this statement. It was headlined, White House rebukes Trumps suggestion to suspend Constitution over 2020 election. (Perhaps its a quibble, but termination seems to go even beyond suspend.) Politico did the same. (White House to Trump: You cannot only love America when you win.) Axios also zeroed in on the reaction. (Lawmakers condemn Trumps call to suspend Constitution.)
*snip*