Media Matters analyzed the coverage in the LA Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Washington Post, comparing the number of stories written in the week following Judge Chutkan’s unsealing of Jack Smith’s filing in the Trump coup case, which ended on Wednesday, the 26th, to the number of stories written in the same newspapers in the week following James Comey’s letter about Hillary Clinton’s emails eight years ago this month.
This week, there were 26 stories about Jack Smith’s filing, while eight years ago, there were 100 stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails.
With the election looming, Trump’s fascist rhetoric has dramatically escalated. He now talks about jailing American dissenters, shutting down the media, and expelling any immigrant over the age of twelve, he deems worthy of expulsion, citing a 1798 law that’s already on the books.
This story is not on the front page of New York Times today, a Sunday in mid-October. How is that possible?
When Americans think of fascism, they see violence. They see men with guns kicking in doors. They think of coups and mass killings. That’s how it was in Germany. That’s how it was in Russia. But tyranny doesn’t always come with guns and shouting. It’s quieter. It moves slowly.
People don’t think of it happening over dinner or walking down the street.
But that’s how it will come. You won’t see it at first.
It will be in your everyday life, creeping in before you even know it’s there.
I used to view the New York Times as the nation's newspaper of record. When I lived in Manhattan, there was nothing like grabbing bagels and the Sunday Times on a Saturday night. And then on Sunday, working my way through the day reading as much of the paper as I could. But over time, both the Times and I have changed.
In their effort to appear balanced, the Times now regularly publishes op-eds from hard-right Republicans. Much like Trump, these pieces are filled with lies, yet there’s little explanation from the Times about why they’re being published, in addition to several columnists and Times contributors who are clearly MAGA-friendly Republicans.
CNN has undergone a similar shift, to the point where I sometimes wonder if I’m watching CNN or Fox News. There is one big difference that remains, the number of blond haired women at Fox is Guiness Book of World Records material.
Nevertheless, my distrust of legacy media continues to grow.
Starting in 2014, as Trump began his political rise, both CNN and MSNBC, and of course Fox, gave him seemingly unlimited airtime—by phone, no less. Of course there’s a big difference between a phone interview and an in-person interview.
On these phoners, people can’t see Trump, they have no idea that’s he probably lying in bed surrounded by Big Macs and Diet Cokes, wearing his Depends. His bedroom, a grotesque display of excess and neglect, is strewn with greasy wrappers and half-eaten fast food, the stench of stale fries and spilled soda thick in the air. Empty cans of Diet Coke tower precariously on the nightstand, sticky rings staining the surface. The sheets, once white, are now a patchwork of grease stains, crumbs embedded in the fabric. A TV flickers Fox News endlessly in the background, casting a dim glow over the crumpled piles of clothing and discarded papers scattered across the floor. The air, heavy with the rancid odor of cold burgers, feels almost suffocating, and yet, somehow, he seems perfectly content in the chaos.
After The Apprentice, Donald J. Trump was a full-fledged reality tv star. Of course his appearances on Morning Joe, Fox and Friends, The Situation Room and other media outlets took full advantage of his star appeal. It boosted their ratings. New Yorkers knew Trump as a narcissistic crackpot but to the media, he was a viewership goldmine. And because he was a creation of tabloid journalism, we were told—he could never actually win. Until he did.
Look at where we are now. If the media hadn’t given him relentless coverage, there’s no way he’d have come this far. Corporate media played a huge role in Trump’s rise and might just be his not-so-secret ally in a potential return to power. Trump has a knack for turning on people, and after his victory, he’s vowed to imprison any member of the press who doesn’t kneel before him, demanding total loyalty to their self-proclaimed savior.
So it’s not so surprising that so few media outlets today call Trump out for his complete insanity. Why? Because he’s still tv ratings gold and he sells newspapers. Today’s tabloid-driven media isn’t focused on delivering the truth—it’s focused on entertainment. And Trump, for all his chaos, is nothing if not entertaining.
Leading up to the election, The New York Times and other major media outlets have been accused of “sane-washing” Donald Trump’s rhetoric, especially when it comes to policies like tariffs. This phenomenon occurs when the media attempts to smooth over Trump’s erratic and often incoherent statements, reinterpreting or summarizing them in ways that lend them more logic and coherence than they actually possess. The New York Times’ coverage of Trump’s tariffs is a prime example of this practice.
In an article about Trump’s tariffs, the New York Times presented an extended quote from Trump regarding tariffs and childcare. Trump’s statement was a jumble of ideas, where he attempted to link revenue from tariffs on foreign goods with funding for childcare. His response, filled with contradictions and nonsensical connections, was reported in full. However, in an effort to make sense of the chaos, the Times followed up with an interpretation: “What he seemed to be saying was that he would raise so much money by imposing tariffs on imported goods that the country could use the proceeds to pay for childcare.”
This rephrasing, meant to clarify Trump’s position, is a textbook example of sane-washing. Rather than confront the fundamental incoherence of Trump’s statement, the Times attempted to inject logic where none existed. This effort not only distorts the truth but also softens the absurdity of Trump’s rhetoric, allowing misinformation to seep into public discourse without proper challenge.
One of the most troubling aspects of this particular case is the media’s willingness to overlook basic economic facts in favor of preserving Trump’s narrative. Tariffs are taxes on imports paid by U.S. consumers, not by foreign nations as Trump claims. By failing to challenge this falsehood, the media allows the misconception to persist. The Times, in its attempt to rationalize Trump’s statement, framed the issue as a “disputable policy assumption,” rather than addressing the core falsehood that tariffs tax foreign countries.
This failure to challenge Trump’s misstatements about tariffs is indicative of a broader issue. For years, the media has been enabling Trump’s misrepresentation of facts about tariffs, from his 2016 campaign through his presidency. His misleading claims about tariffs being a financial boon for the U.S. and a punishment for foreign nations have gone largely unchecked by reporters, despite the clear evidence that tariffs primarily burden American consumers.
The New York Times’ recent article demonstrates how even high-profile media outlets can contribute to the problem by attempting to inject rationality into irrational statements. Instead of holding Trump accountable for his economic falsehoods, they sanitize his words, making them appear as disputable policy proposals rather than outright inaccuracies. This type of coverage not only confuses readers but also undermines the role of journalism in challenging misinformation.
As long as the media continues to treat Trump’s ramblings with undue seriousness, it will continue to fail in its duty to provide the public with accurate information. Trump’s falsehoods about tariffs and many other issues need to be exposed for what they are—lies that give people false hope and mislead the American public about how the economy truly works.
Trump might win. This is not a popular vote election. The Electoral College runs the show and the map favors Republicans. The election will be decided by the seven battleground states. America’s in deep trouble. It’s a nation of wandering souls, wondering how the hell the American Dream got derailed and fearing what’s next. And Trump, the maestro of manipulation, feeds off that fear like a vampire.
In Network (1976), Paddy Chayefsky accurately predicted the shift of TV news from serious journalism to entertainment-driven sensationalism. The fictional UBS network turned its news into a spectacle focused on shock value, much like today’s media, which often prioritizes sensational stories and emotional content over factual reporting. Chayefsky also foresaw corporate control of news, with profit and ratings taking precedence over journalistic integrity—reflecting modern concerns about news networks catering to advertisers. The film predicted the blending of news and entertainment, as well as the exploitation of public anger and fear for viewership.
Paddy Chayefsky and Rod Serling were the finest writers to emerge from early television in the 1950s. Both were committed to telling the truth, and much of their work remains disturbingly relevant today.
Network (1959) Screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky, Directed by Sidney Lumet
Bravo
Be well
Inspiring and thought provoking