Sanewashing? The banality of crazy? A decade into the Trump era, media hasn't figure him out

Political debates, News media, Elections, Politics, 2024 United States presidential election, Entertainment, Business, Article

NEW YORK -- Nearly a decade into the Trump Era of politics, less than a month from his third Election Day as the Republican candidate for president and there is still remarkably little consensus within the media about how best to cover Donald Trump .

Are reporters “sanewashing” Trump, or are they succumbing to the “banality of crazy?" Should his rallies be shown extensively, or not at all? To fact-check or not fact-check?

“If it wasn't so serious, I would just be fascinated by all of it,” said Parker Molloy, media critic and author of The Present Age column on Substack. “If it didn't have to do with who is going to be president, I would watch this and marvel at how challenging it is to cover one person who seems to defy all of the rules of journalism.”

Volumes will be written about Trump and his relationship with the press long after he leaves office. He has always been keenly aware of the media and adept at navigating it, even during his celebrity builder days in Manhattan when he closely followed the coverage of him in tabloid gossip columns. Most of the issues stem from Trump's disdain for limitations, his willingness to make outrageous and demonstrably false statements, and his reliance on his supporters to believe him over those reporting on him.

This situation has even come full circle, with some experts now suggesting that the best way to cover him is to provide the public with greater access to his pronouncements — a complete reversal of what was once considered conventional wisdom.

Molloy first coined the term “sanewashing” this fall to describe a trend among journalists to soften or sanitize some of Trump's more outrageous or incoherent statements, making them appear like the typical pronouncements of a conventional politician. One example she cites: CNN paraphrasing a Trump post on Truth Social that rambled on about the “radical left” and “fake news” into a straightforward news report about the former president agreeing to debate his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris .

At its best, this sanitizing of Trump's words creates an alternative narrative, she said. At its worst, it's misinformation.

During a Wisconsin rally the last weekend of September, Trump spoke of danger from criminals who are in the country illegally. “They will walk into your kitchen, they'll cut your throat,” he said. The New Republic writer Michael Tomasky was surprised not to find the quote in The New York Times' and Washington Post's coverage, although The Times noted that Trump demonized undocumented immigrants, and there were other media references to what Trump himself called a dark speech.

“Trump's constant repetition of extreme, racist, and violent statements may not always be novel,” Tomasky wrote . “But it remains a persistent reality. Is the press justified in disregarding this reality simply because it isn't fresh?”

One probable reason the remark didn't receive much attention is because Trump — at the same rally — referred to Harris without evidence as “mentally disabled.”

That comment was briefly mentioned on the ABC and CBS evening newscasts the next day, within the context of criticism from two fellow Republicans, and after reports about Hurricane Helene's devastation and war in the Middle East. NBC's “Nightly News” didn't mention it at all.

In other words, Trump made another outrageous statement. What's new? More than simply ignoring it, political scientist Brian Klaas describes this as the banality of crazy, where journalists become accustomed to Trump's shocking remarks, simply because they're numbed to them.

In-depth reporting on Trump seldom fits the typical format of quick news stories that summarize daily developments. “This really caters to a small group of news consumers, those we would call news junkies, who follow the campaign closely,” said Kelly McBride, senior vice president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank. “But it doesn't help people decide how to vote, or understand the candidate better.”

Trump's critics often express frustration with the way leading news outlets cover him. But they sometimes miss the efforts made to provide context to issues they are concerned about. The Times, for instance, used a computer to analyze his speeches now with older ones in a Sunday story, and similarly had a Sept. 9 investigation of questions about Trump's age and mental fitness. The Post has reported about how Trump avoids mentioning his father's Alzheimer's Disease while attacking others on their mental capacity, and distortions regarding a cognitive test he took. The Associated Press wrote of Trump's Wisconsin rally that he “shifted from topic to topic so quickly that it was hard to keep track of what he meant at times.”

“Trump is a truly difficult figure to cover because he constantly challenges news media processes, and has done so for years,” The Times' Maggie Haberman, one of Trump's most prominent chroniclers, told NPR last month. “The systems ... were not designed to handle someone who makes false statements as frequently as he does or speaks as incoherently as he often does. I believe the media has actually done a good job of showing people who he is, what he says, and what he does.”

Press critics might be disappointed that their efforts lack the desired impact. “Those who dislike or are angered by him find it difficult to believe his success and want the press to somehow convince his supporters that they are mistaken,” said Tom Rosenstiel, a journalism professor at the University of Maryland. “But the press can't do that.”

One of the key issues surrounding the three general election debates was how, or even if, the television networks would fact-check the candidates in real time on air.

CNN refrained from doing so during Trump's debate with President Joe Biden in the spring. When ABC moderators corrected Trump four times during his September debate with Harris, Trump's supporters were furious. CBS News sought a middle ground during the vice presidential debate, and learned firsthand how challenging it is to satisfy everyone.

“F you CBS — how DARE YOU,” Megyn Kelly posted on X when CBS briefly muted JD Vance 's microphone after correcting him on a comment about immigrants. Salon media critic Melanie McFarland wrote that those best positioned to expose falsehoods “barely rose to that duty.”

Fact-checking websites thrived during Trump's presidency, with their number surging from 63 in 2016 to 79 in 2020, according to the Duke Reporters' Lab. However, limitations were also exposed: Republicans condemned the practice, leading many Trump supporters to either dismiss fact-checkers or simply avoid their work. Rosenstiel pointed out that merely highlighting a politician's inaccuracies is insufficient in day-to-day reporting; journalists must provide clear explanations of why those statements are wrong.

Journalists, rarely seen as popular figures, witnessed a sharp decline in their collective reputation under Trump's relentless attacks.

In the exciting days of 2015, television news networks like CNN showed Trump campaign rallies extensively. It was entertaining. It boosted ratings. What harm could come from it?

Many later expressed regret over that decision . Throughout his presidency and beyond, television outlets that are not Trump-friendly have wrestled with the question of how much to show Trump unfiltered, and still haven't found a definitive answer. CNN shows Trump at rallies occasionally, rarely at length.

But in a throwback to the past, some experts now say it's best to let people hear Trump's words directly. Poynter's McBride lauded The 19th for a story on child care when, frustrated by an attempt to clarify Trump's positions with his campaign, the website simply printed a confusing 365-word direct quote from Trump when he was asked about the issue.

While fact checks and context have their place, there's value in presenting Trump in his unfiltered form. “Showing Trump at length is not sanewashing,” Rosenstiel said.

Molloy admitted to some surprise at how much attention her original column on sanewashing received. It may reflect a desire to define the undefinable, to figure out what the news media still hasn't been able to after all this time. She notes the politicians who try to imitate Trump but fail.

“They don't have what makes him Donald Trump,” she said. “People can view it as part of his brilliance and people can view it as him being crazy. It's likely a bit of both.”

___

David Bauder covers media for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder .