Quantcast
Connect with us

How the New York Times creates credibility for Trump

Published

on

- Commentary

There’s a good reason why the Times decided against running on its front page news of the latest woman to accuse the president of rape. The Times still does journalism the way it always has. It gives people in power the never-ending benefit of the doubt.

When you are willing to give people in power the benefit of the doubt no matter how many times they have proven they are unworthy of that benefit, it’s not all that important when the 16th person comes forward credibly to accuse Donald Trump of anything, even if, in the case of columnist E. Jean Carroll, the allegation is rape.

ADVERTISEMENT

Conventionally, news stories seek to weigh accusations against denials. In this case, Carroll said Trump raped her in a department store in the 1990s. (She is the 16th woman to make such allegations against the president; she outlines the allegation in detail in a new book excerpted Friday in New York magazine). The president said he did no such thing. Conventionally, this is all the press can do in the absence of a court decision. One person says one thing. The other says another. And that’s it.

That might be acceptable if this president were not Donald Trump, and if Donald Trump had not told more than 10,000 lies and falsehoods since taking office. If he were any other source, reporters would have blackballed him. No one that unchained from observable reality is worth the time it takes to figure out what’s true or what’s false.

The Times and others have created a fiction in spite of being dedicated to the truth.

The president, obviously, is a unique source. But instead of vetting the president’s claims, the Times and others—it’s not the only bad actor—decide to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is to say, give him credibility where he has little. How? By “balancing” Carroll’s accusations with his denials. Worse by burying the story on page A23 of the Sunday edition, signaling to all that the story is not that important.

ADVERTISEMENT

In giving Trump credibility, the Times and others, but especially the Times, have created a fiction in spite of being dedicated to establishing the truth without fear or favor. That fiction is a president credible enough to be paired with a woman who has not told, as far as we know, more than 10,000 lies and falsehoods. In equating things that should not be equated, the Times upgrades Trump while downgrading Carroll.

Giving people in power the benefit of the doubt no matter what does something else. It gives people in power incentive to keep lying. If there are few consequences for lying, there’s likely few consequences for things worse than lying, like rape. All Trump had to do to keep Carroll’s allegations from blowing up over the weekend is deny them. In this sense, the Times is creating conditions in which anything is permissible for this president, and Trump can trust that he can go as far as he pleases.

This is dangerous territory.

ADVERTISEMENT

All presidents govern in the people’s name, but only because the people have given him that authority. That authority is revocable if the president proves that he can’t be trusted. The people, however, can’t know if he can be trusted if elite news agencies like the Times continue to give him more credibility than he deserves, thus creating a media fiction that actively works against the will of the people. In this sense, the Times, wittingly or not, is enabling degradation of the American republic.

The Times, like I said, is not the only bad actor, but the Times is unique in our politics if only because the president himself considers the Times unique. Nothing gets under his skin more than the Times, because he venerates the newspaper. This is why the Times should bear a larger share of the responsibility than other major papers. This is why the Times treatment of the E. Jean Carroll story merits our critical attention.

At the very least, the Times and its emulators should frame all future allegations against this president in the context of trust so that it’s clear to readers that the president’s credibility, based on what we know, is inferior to that of his accusers. Ideally, the Times would stop maintaining the fiction of a credible president, start vetting each of his claims, and reaffirm service above all else to democracy.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

2020 Election

‘I don’t care’: Watch Kamala Harris shut down Chris Hayes for asking a dumb question about Trump

Published

on

Sen. Kamala Harris shut down MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes during a post-debate interview on Tuesday evening.

Hayes questioned Harris about her call for Twitter to follow their terms of service and kick President Donald Trump off of the platform.

"Do you think he puts people’s lives in danger when he targets them in tweets?" Hayes asked.

"Absolutely," Harris replied.

"Do you think he knows that?" Hayes asked.

"Does it matter?" Harris replied.

"The fact is he did it. The fact is that he is irresponsible, he is erratic," she explained. "He is like a 2-year-old with a machine gun."

Continue Reading

2020 Election

Democrats blast Trump and demand his impeachment at CNN debate

Published

on

Democratic White House hopefuls united in searing condemnation of Donald Trump during their fourth debate Tuesday, saying the president has broken the law, abused his power, and deserves to be impeached.

From the opening moments, most of the dozen candidates on stage launched fierce broadsides against Trump over the Ukrainian scandal at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.

"The impeachment must go forward," said Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is neck and neck with former vice president Joe Biden at the head of the 2020 nominations race.

"Impeachment is the way that we establish that this man will not be permitted to break the law over and over without consequences," she thundered.

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

Here are 3 winners and 4 losers from the CNN/NYT Democratic presidential primary debate

Published

on

Twelve Democrats took to the stage Tuesday night for yet another debate in the party's 2020 president primary hosted by CNN and the New York Times.

After only ten candidates qualified for the previous debate, an additional two — Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and wealthy donor and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer — made it to the stage this round for an even more crowded event.

The candidates discussed a range of important policy issues, but since the format was a debate, and they're all competing for the same nomination, it is ultimately most critical who won and who lost the night. Here are three winners and four losers — necessarily a subjective assessment, of course — from the debate:

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image