Donald Trump versus the media: bad cop, bad cop
A throwaway line in a Washington Post article goes some way to revealing exactly why the American media is so widely despised and mistrusted.
Musing about why many Trump supporters stubbornly insist on viewing his presidency as a success thus far (rather than the cataclysmic failure portrayed by mainstream narratives), the Post reports:
Several people said they would have liked to see more coverage of a measure that Trump signed Thursday that rolled back a last-minute Obama regulation that would have restricted coal mines from dumping debris in nearby streams. At the signing, Trump was joined by coal miners in hard hats.
“If he hadn’t gotten into office, 70,000 miners would have been put out of work,” Patricia Nana, a 42-year-old naturalized citizen from Cameroon. “I saw the ceremony where he signed that bill, giving them their jobs back, and he had miners with their hard hats and everything — you could see how happy they were.”
The regulation actually would have cost relatively few mining jobs and would have created nearly as many new jobs on the regulatory side, according to a government report — an example of the frequent distance between Trump’s rhetoric, which many of his supporters wholeheartedly believe, and verifiable facts.
My emphasis in bold.
Now, this is not about the merits and disadvantages of expanding coal mining. This is about the blasé arrogance of the Washington Post, suggesting to its readers that the creation of government regulatory jobs in any way makes up for the loss of manual jobs in coal mining.
How many ex-coal miners with high school-level educations will be eligible for these new regulatory jobs? Probably very few. But these jobs will enormously benefit the college-educated, Washington D.C.-dwelling professional class who are eligible for attractive jobs in the Department of Energy or the Environmental Protection Agency.
It is difficult to know whether the Post’s dismissal of concerns about coal mining job losses because they will be “offset” by new regulatory jobs is merely ignorant or deliberately callous towards the working classes. But either way, it reveals a huge gulf between the perspective of the Washington Post and its readership on the one hand, and Trump-supporting people from coal country on the other.
Maybe those coal mining jobs should be killed anyway. Ultimately, of course, they certainly should be phased out as part of a move away from fossil fuel dependence. But for the Post to speak haughtily about Trump supporters’ aversion to “verifiable facts” while misleading its own readership by pretending that the Obama-era environmental regulations (whatever their core merits) were anything other than a transfer of wealth and opportunity away from coal country manual workers towards the DC professional class is morally dubious and a dereliction of their professional duty as a supposedly objective national news outlet.
Essentially, the Post is suggesting that Trump supporters are somehow being irrational to cheer the overturning of anti-coal regulations that will restore some coal mining jobs, because they should instead be rejoicing at the creation of other, office-based jobs for which they are almost certainly ineligible. How terribly unenlightened of them to not cheer as their small-town jobs are sacrificed to create other jobs for city-dwelling public sector bureaucrats.
Assuming the best of intentions rather than the worst, this represents a vast gulf of understanding between the Washington media class and a large segment of the country on which they report. The frequent complaint of Trump supporters is that their interests have long been ignored by a political and economic elite who have time and compassion for everyone and everything save the rural and suburban squeezed white lower middle and working classes, with politicians and the media colluding to keep their struggles, concerns and aspirations off the political agenda. And now the media, which seems to be relishing its oppositional role to President Trump, seems determined to live up to that stereotype.
Accusations that the mainstream media is “fake news” go too far – the Washington Post or New York Times will never publish a breathless story about Michelle Obama being arrested for treason or Hillary Clinton participating in witchcraft rituals, the kind of ludicrous and obviously false clickbait which pollutes the internet and is sadly shared by too many a credulous conservative. The mainstream media’s form of bias is subtler and much more insidious. There are few outright falsehoods in the prestige media, but one can often achieve just as much through deliberately one-sided story selection and a deliberately skewed angle of coverage, made all the more effective because unlike fake news sites, respected outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times actually influence the worldviews and opinions of key decision makers in Washington D.C. and beyond.
In other words, too many respectable, prestige mainstream media outlets have squandered any trust and goodwill they one held with the public by subtly but repeatedly pushing a political agenda (the largely bipartisan agenda of the DC political elite). This climate of distrust is a problem of the media’s own making. And it all begins with having newsrooms full of reporters and editors with so few (if any) roots in the kind of community which came out strongly for Donald Trump in the 2016 election that they are utterly incapable of reporting on them with any real understanding, subtlety or empathy.
If the goal is to avoid events like the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, surely our first step must be one of introspection – not furiously shouting insults at people who often voted for Trump through despair or resignation, not misrepresenting their political views to the point of slander, but rather understanding how the political mainstream managed to consistently fail these people so badly that they felt they were left with little alternative. The Washington Post, for all the good reporting they often do, is light years away from recognising this fact, let alone showing such introspection in their coverage.
Indeed, if anything, the American media is moving in the opposite direction. Spurred by President Trump’s reprehensible attacks on the media as a whole, the Washington press corps is doing what they love to do best – talking about themselves and wallowing in a sense of victimhood and persecution, laughably painting themselves as noble and selfless heroes and seekers of truth in this new authoritarian age.
I’m sorry, but that is nonsense. Many of these reporters are the same ones who in the 2000s used to leap smartly to their feet, offering obsequious respect and nary a searching question whenever president George W Bush strolled into the White House press briefing room to announce the erosion of core civil liberties, exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq and then downplay his administration’s calamitous handling of the war. This is the same press corps that often treated every utterance from President Obama as sacred, unquestionable unicorn song, hyping his candidacy and forgiving his administration’s missteps.
This is the same press corps which gathers every year for the White House Correspondents Dinner, in which journalists and politicians slap each other on the back and toady up to power in one of the most sickening modern day political rituals known to man. Oh yes, and they are the ratings whores who gave blanket, uncritical rolling news coverage of Donald Trump’s every garbled word back when he was still just a laughable Republican Party presidential primary candidate, acting as oxygen to the the flames of the Trump campaign in the first place.
A healthy democracy needs a free press. But it sure as hell doesn’t need the craven, self-satisfied press we are stuck with at the moment. You can probably count the number of Washington or New York-based political journalists with a record of consistently principled, inquisitive and objective work on two hands. None of them work in television news. The rest are every bit as much a part of the fetid, corrupt political class as the politicians on whom they report. And now they take the angry anti-media rantings of President Trump and use them as an excuse to prance around playing the noble, heroic victim. We should not fall for their tawdry act.
Increasingly, the presidency of Donald Trump will require us to hold two competing thoughts in our head simultaneously: that yes, the Trump administration is troubling in a whole host of ways, but also that many of the people opposing Trump (from the sanctimonious, rootless, unreformed Democrats to the lazy and morally compromised Washington media) are also grievously at fault. And the sins of Donald Trump do not excuse the failings of those forces ranged against him, just as the spineless, uncurious, self-aggrandising behaviour of the Washington media does not excuse the authoritarian, impulsive excesses of the new president.
It is sheer lunacy to believe that the forces which gave us President Trump will be placated and put back in their box by a coordinated campaign of opposition from a Democratic Party and Washington political media class who have spent precisely zero hours pondering their own role in this period of “American carnage”, and who have shown zero willingness to change their own behaviour and policy preferences. Indeed, as newspaper subscriptions and cable news show ratings rise in step with the turmoil emanating from the White House, many in the Washington media are probably deluding themselves into thinking that they are actually doing a good job.
This could not be further from the truth.
As things stand, both sides will continue to antagonise one another; an out-of-touch Washington media class will continue to report on the residents of Trumpland as though they are some kind of fascinating but dangerous medical specimen best kept behind the safety glass in a lab, and Trump supporters, feeling patronised and wilfully misunderstood, will continue to distrust everything that the mainstream media says (including the 90% which is reasonably accurate, if sometimes politically skewed).
One side will have to blink first. You would hope that it might be the DC chattering class – through some instinctive self-preservation reflex, if nothing else.
Support Semi-Partisan Politics with a one-time or recurring donation:
Agree with this article? Violently disagree? Scroll down to leave a comment.
Follow Semi-Partisan Politics on Twitter, Facebook and Medium.
Good to have you back Sam.
‘The regulation actually would have cost relatively few mining jobs and would have created nearly as many new jobs on the regulatory side, according to a government report’
This is a insightful quote to focus in on to explain the rise of Trump and a dissatisfaction with the political establishment in the West. It is complacent and condescending (use of the word ‘actually’). It does not seek to explain why Obama made this move only at the death-knell of his presidency. It is totally unconcerned that ‘relatively few mining jobs’ will be lost, and as you say, sees no difference between these jobs lost and government bureaucratic jobs gained as a consequence. The number of jobs gained is only ‘nearly as many’, and yet this drip drip loss of jobs does not seem to concern them. Finally, the belief that almost as many new jobs would be created on the regulatory side as lost in mining, is wholly based on a ‘government report’, the same government that initiated the measure, and so has an incentive to massage the figures to their advantage. And yet the author did not see fit to question this – their curiosity clearly disappears when it comes to questioning their own side.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good to see you back Sam. Great blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheers, and many thanks as always for reading! It’s good to be back. Turns out it is much harder to quit ranting about politics than I expected 😉
Worse than you say.
Firstly, the bureaucrats will expand and eventually replace all the miners. But mainly, secondly, the bureaucracy will contribute nothing to the American economy.
Lefties don’t understand where tax income comes from. They think it’s free money out of a magic box.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If the goal is to avoid events like the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, surely our first step must be one of introspection”
Surely Sam you mean “their” first step, not our first step. Saying “our” reads like you are on the same side as the Washington media (which I don’t think you are)
I have to agree with Helicon about AGW. The models still do not reflect empirical data, indeed the gap between the two is widening.
Hi Sam & welcome back.
I wished to add a comment viz the first point – “Now, this is not about the merits and disadvantages of expanding coal mining. This is about the blasé arrogance of the Washington Post, suggesting to its readers that the creation of government regulatory jobs in any way makes up for the loss of manual jobs in coal mining.”
What struck me was the ‘big government’ presumption of the Washington media, namely that a tax funded job was in any way equivalent to a job in a commercial activity. I consider that commerce pays all the bills – governmental subsidies/schemes and admin are all ‘parasitic’ upon commerce. And coal mining is a primary producer commercial activity (the resultant product may be substituted using oil / gas / alternate energy sources, but it competes to provide an energy source).
I’d have thought that said point is at he heart of the lack of esteem with which the mainstream Washington media are viewed by those of a libertarian/small gov’t viewpoint.
I’m sure the article makes some very valid points about the squalid American broadcast media, but I had to give up reading it when I read “Maybe those coal mining jobs should be killed anyway. Ultimately, of course, they certainly should be phased out as part of a move away from fossil fuel dependence.”
The theory of AGW is the greatest scientific fraud in history. Massive data manipulation and a gargantuan amount of junk science, to fuel a religious-like fervour that man is destroying everything; when the evidence shows the reverse.
Hi Samuel, welcome back. I was so excited a few minutes ago to see TWO blogs from you that I have still to read them. My, how I’ve missed you – but feel sure after reading about your sojourns recently in the US with family and friends and your internal debate about where you go from hereon, I’m certainly looking forward to whatever you have to say. If you remember, (of course you don’t,) I’m a “leftie” and a Brexiteer and now have doubts about being a “leftie” given we have Jeremy Corbyn in charge. Thanks for coming back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Heather for your very kind words, and apologies for my lengthy absence! Though I probably won’t be going back to daily blogging any time soon I will try not to leave it so long next time, and will offer up some thoughts on British politics too.
I certainly do remember your political leanings, and have always enjoyed (and learned from) your contributions in the Comments section my blog – it’s great to still have you as a reader, thanks for sticking around during my hibernation!