Scott Dworkin urges the media to stop treating Trump like a normal politician. He is not.
Here is his advice for the press:
We’ve been talking a lot about how the mainstream media has failed to cover Trump and his campaign properly. All too often they simply parrot Donald’s propaganda as if it’s news, and give him unchecked airtime while he tells nothing but lies…
I am sick of the same garbage being tossed around like Donald is an average candidate, instead of the deranged and twisted wannabe dictator he has proven he wants to be.
Time and time again, Donald gets away with his lies and gaslighting. The Trump-supporting owners of mainstream media only want money, ratings, and for Donald to be elected. The journalists they employ are along for the ride.
Enough is enough.
Here are some simple things the Press must do to combat today’s lies from Donald during and after his lie-filled presser.
They Can’t Let Lies Slide
If a reporter asks Trump a question and he lies, they need to ask him why he’s lying. This isn’t hard. If it’s a lie, it’s a lie. It’s the journalist’s job to hold him accountable. And their duty to interrupt Trump and point out the facts, not to just nod their head along like he’s telling the truth.
Make Donald Answer the Question
The Press needs to stop letting Trump get away with dodging questions and lying in every answer. He isn’t smart enough to answer anything complex, so the questions they ask need to be as simple as possible. And they must keep pushing until they get a real answer. Don’t let him change the subject or move on from it. Get thrown out of his golf club if need be. But don’t let him steamroll you with his lies or misdirections.
Check the Facts
When Trump lies, hosts of shows should interrupt the broadcast to point out a lie and then correct the record. Or better yet, don’t air him live at all.
Cover it Critically
Press can’t just copy, paste and repeat any of the unhinged things Trump says into their headlines. And they can’t cut him slack and act like whatever he is saying is normal.
Stop Cowering
The mainstream media must start covering Trump as the maniacal liar in cognitive decline that he is. No more of the same weak treatment from the Press as if they don’t know who Donald is. They need to stop being afraid of him. And stop being scared of losing the job they aren’t actually doing.
When I go on tv, I get tons of threats immediately afterwards. It’s sadly part of the job, due to Trump’s constant attacks on journalists. But all threats do is drive me to do more, to dig in further on an investigation. To not stand down. And to keep going.
Last week our work helped garner more than 1.9 billion impressions on social media. Yesterday, we ran a campaign using the hashtag #TrumpWillCutSocialSecurity and thanks to everyone’s help it trended #10 in the US, garnered over 365 million impressions and even Mark Hamill joined in again!
Today we will share this post with millions of people to pressure mainstream media into properly covering this absurd Trump PR stunt. We’ll also be calling out individual journalists and networks, demanding they do better. I don’t expect immediate miracles, but they sure as heck will hear us.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I know, after 4 days of fresh air and truth — I’d literally forgotten what that was like — the mainscream media, even PBS, went right back to trying to pretend Trump is anywhere near sane.
LikeLike
trump (YES, little d,) is indeed: a maniacal liar! And yes, the press must stop treating him as if he is normal.
So TRUE: “The mainstream media must start covering Trump as the maniacal liar in cognitive decline that he is. No more of the same weak treatment from the Press as if they don’t know who Donald is. They need to stop being afraid of him. And stop being scared of losing the job they aren’t actually doing.”
Thank you, Diane.
LikeLike
Yvonne: I won’t be glad to see his face again unless it’s from behind the plexiglass. CBK
LikeLike
AGREE, Catherine. 👍🏽💙👍🏽
LikeLike
One of the problems with the modern media is that all forms of it use the unfiltered instant approach. Whereas print media goes through a slow process of writing, editing, and proofing, an interview on live has to put up with whatever it says. Like a street corner speech with a huge bullhorn, 24 hour news depends largely on spoken statements by unreliable speakers peddling agenda.
If every policy advocate were subjected to instant disagreement by a hostile interviewer, nothing would result but a barbershop argument between strangers. Ultimately, we would arrive at an absence of information.
I am not sure what to do with this.
LikeLike
I believe in free speech, but we have a problem when millions of people are tuning into a steady diet of lies and misinformation on right wing news outlets, and there is no way to correct the misinformation. Maybe we need some type of instantaneous fact checker on news programs. While they are not perfect, they are better than nothing. Right wing media is cashing in on lies.
LikeLike
My sister just emailed me to read Kennedy about vaccines and autism! That was after I told her that the link between autism and vaccines had been totally debunked.
LikeLike
Retired: MAGA just resorts to saying that the fact checkers are lying, just like the jury. I still cannot believe that they bought Trump’s claim that, if he loses, then by definition, the election was/is rigged. (huh?)
All the while, he is involved in rigging the election–two instances: paying off Stormy and his call to Georgia.
Nothing left to do but go visit them in a room with plexiglass windows.
Part of the effort to normalize is that we keep thinking MAGA can carry on a conversation like a sane person. CBK
LikeLike
RT: I sort of look on the lies and misinformation like other human behaviors I despise. Some of these behaviors can be legally prevented, either by threat of legal action or direct government sanctions, but others are necessarily a matter of convincing each other through dialogue. The most powerful solution is a literate, educated public.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good answer, with the caveat that I don’t know about “government sanctions” for misinformation. I don’t want government in the business of deciding what’s true.
LikeLike
One thing it means to be “Fair And Balanced” (FAB) is to recognize and report when something or someone is unfair and unbalanced. (No, we don’t have to fall for that old trap — being tolerant doesn’t mean tolerating intolerance — tolerance is not self-destructive.)
LikeLike
yes
LikeLike
A journalist in Utah was recently fired by the “left wing” local newspaper becaus he commented on social media that he would buy teens books that have been banned in the state.
LikeLike
What’s being normalized is neocon rhetoric and ideology, and that scares me more than Trump. The antidote to Trumpism isn’t more aggression, more belligerence, more war, more “national security”/surveillance (i.e., control). The antidote is compassion, understanding, listening, resolving conflicts, making sure needs are met. The Democrats are sounding more and more like WWE fighters trash talking each other before hitting each other over the head with chairs. That used to be solely a Republican thing. Now Democrats and Republicans both think that things like negotiation and detente are “weak”. But the reality is that when people’s (and nations’) needs are recognized and met, there is no need for lashing out like a threatened animal. When needs are met and all parties feel secure, then executive functions can come online and conflicts can be resolved to mutual benefit. The way the neocon rhetoric is taking over this country, we’re going to end up in a nuclear war and it’s really hard to yell “USA! USA!” after you’ve been vaporized. War, violence power and control aren’t strengths – they’re what insecure people cling to to ease their fear. Peace, compassion, understanding and conflict resolution are strength.
LikeLike
“Now Democrats and Republicans both think that things like negotiation and detente are “weak”.
This is such a blatant lie I don’t understand how you can possibly post it.
Is it because you are angry that the US and all those western European countries that provide universal healthcare and lots of progressive things to their citizens are helping Ukraine stave off Putin installing an authoritarian puppet regime in the country?
Do you believe that the US is not “negotiating” (in the Neville Chamberlain sense) to give Putin whatever he wants because they are afraid of looking “weak”?
Do you really not see any moral reason for not letting Putin take over Ukraine by force? You can only imagine the US supporting Ukraine so they don’t look weak?
You project Trump’s views onto the Democrats all the time. Trump is the one who sees everything in terms of whether HE looks weak or whether HE can get some advantage. It’s disturbing you can’t see the difference. But there is one. Biden is trying to do make difficult choices when there isn’t one good choice. That’s what Kamala will do. But it will never be because they are insecure bullies who only care about whether they look “weak”. Projecting Trump’s view on them should be called out as a lie, in my opinion. If Bob wants to spew vile at me for saying this, go right ahead Bob. This is a truly awful and dishonest comment.
LikeLike
The only persons threatening to use nuclear weapons today are Trump’s pal Kim Jong Un and your hero Tsar Vladimir the Short and Defenestrating. Time for coups in both countries. Long past time.
LikeLike
The U.S. is the one that unilaterally pulled out of most of our nuclear treaties. The U.S. is the one surrounding their countries with military bases. The U.S. is the one that has bombed dozens of countries in the last 70 years. The U.S. is the one that imposes starvation sanction on any country that doesn’t obey its rules and allow itself to be plundered (the latter being the reason Putin is painted as an evil madman after he was initially hailed as an ally – because he put an end to the Yeltsin era pillage, thereby raising Russians’ standard of living to the highest it’s ever been). The U.S. is the aggressor. Other countries are cornered and fighting back. The U.S. would do far worse if other countries threatened us like we threaten them.
LikeLike
Trump unilaterally pulled out of the INF and the Open Skies Treaty, against the wishes of his SECDEF and his Joint Chiefs, at the very time when his handler, Tsar Vladimir, was fielding a new generation of hypersonic nuclear weapons that could reach the U.S. in 11 minutes. The “putting an end to Yeltsin-era privilege” was a deal that Yeltsin struck with Putin: Yeltsin would name Putin as his successor, and Putin would pardon Yeltsin for the corrupt distribution of Russian assets to cronies. And as the new crime boss of the kleptocratic Mafia state, Putin would get his vig from the Yeltsin-era oligarchs.
LikeLike
Agreed that “starvation sanction” is evil.
LikeLike
My grandmother used to say, “You catch more flies with sugar, sweetie.”
LikeLike
Yeah, so maybe the U.S. should try some sugar, sweetie.
LikeLike
agreed
LikeLike
Imagine if all the money that has gone into the blockade of Cuba had gone, instead, to international aid. This beautiful island, with its astonishingly beautiful and creative people, its people of genius, would be our ally.
LikeLike
Ours has been an utterly idiotic policy.
LikeLike
The United States military is the protector of the world. And yeah, for a long, long time–ever since the Banana Republic wars, the U.S. not only served this role but, alas, propped up petty strongmen and dictators around the globe, as Trump has done and, if given a chance, will do again. Modi, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Kim, Orban, Putin.
LikeLike
Protector??? How many millions have we slaughtered to “protect” the world? Who asked us to do that? What right do we have given our own record? SMDH.
In any case, it’s not about protecting the world. It’s about protecting “our interests” in other countries’ resources. No U.S. soldier has fought for the safety of this world since at least WWII. They’ve fought for geostrategic control so Americans can go on using over 25% of the world’s resources even though we make up less than 5% of the world’s population.
LikeLike
Ask the leaders of Western Europe what they think of American power.
LikeLike
Western Europe started the problem by colonizing the world. They too need to sit down and shut up. Why don’t you ask the leaders of most of the world’s countries what they think of American power – Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Niger (who just kicked us out), and many, many more?
LikeLike
I was in Cambodia not long ago. I met many people and asked what they thought about American intervention. I thought they would express hostility and bitterness. On the contrary, they were grateful that the U.S. freed them from the brutal tyranny of Pol Pot. There were numerous memorials in Pnom Pen to the victims of Communist tyranny.
Same thing in Vietnam. I expected anger towards the U.S. In the South, in Saigon, whenever I used the postwar name–Ho Chi Minh City–the locals corrected me and said they preferred the old name–Saigon.
Dienne, you are not well-informed. You think you are clever by spouting anti-American propaganda.
LikeLike
Did you talk to the 2 million people we killed?
LikeLike
The Vietnam War was a great evil. No question about it. So was the Communist Pol Pot’s determination to kill every person over the age of 12 who had been exposed to Western ideas because he or she was though to be too old to be made into a perfect Communist adult. Estimated toll of Pol Pot’s dictatorship: 1.5 to 2 million people.
LikeLike
Dienne,
Your distorted “knowledge” makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion. The U.S. carpet bombing of Cambodia, which I deplored, then and now, killed between 150,000-500,000 people.
Pol Pot’s absurd and vicious revolution killed between 1.5 million-3 million people.
Just like you to attribute the murders by Pol Pot to our government.
Do me a favor and stop responding. I can’t correct all the errors you pick up by reading only anti-American propaganda.
https://search.app/mngFWkrD2q1VQsZt5
“Lasting for four years (between 1975 and 1979), the Cambodian Genocide was an explosion of mass violence that saw between 1.5 and 3 million people killed at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, a communist political group. The Khmer Rouge had taken power in the country following the Cambodian Civil War. During their brutal four-year rule, the Khmer Rouge was responsible for the deaths of nearly a quarter of Cambodians.
The Cambodian Genocide was the result of a social engineering project by the Khmer Rouge, attempting to create a classless agrarian society. The regime would ultimately collapse when the neighboring Vietnam invaded, establishing an occupation that would last more than a decade. …
“Once the Khmer Rouge took power, they instituted a radical reorganization of Cambodian society. This meant the forced removal of city dwellers into the countryside, where they would be forced to work as farmers, digging canals and tending to crops. Gross mismanagement of the country’s economy led to shortages of food and medicine, and untold numbers of people succumbed to disease and starvation. Families were also split up. The Khmer Rouge created labor brigades, assigning groups depending on age and gender. This policy resulted in hundreds of thousands of Cambodians starving to death.
Religious and ethnic minorities faced particular persecution. Christian and Buddhist groups were targeted for repression but it was the Cham Muslim group that was most affected by the genocide. As many as 500,000 people, or 70% of the total Cham population, were exterminated. Because the Khmer Rouge placed a heavy emphasis on the rural peasant population, anyone considered an intellectual was targeted for special treatment. This meant teachers, lawyers, doctors, and clergy were the targets of the regime. Even people wearing glasses were the target of Pol Pot’s reign of terror.
There is difficulty establishing a definitive number of victims of the Cambodian Genocide. The Cambodians kept methodical records of prisoners and executions. However, because Cambodia’s enemy, Vietnam, invaded and released the records, there is speculation they could have been exaggerated. In addition, estimating the total number of people who starved is difficult. Estimates range from 1.5 to 3 million people having died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, with the consensus being approximately 2 million.”
LikeLike
It is only American power that keeps South Korea safe. But yes, it’s a long, sad history of depredation and counterproductive action to prop up dictators who would do our bidding. Now, thank all the gods, we have moved beyond this, mostly, but Trump wants to go back to this because he loves dictators.
LikeLike
It’s a wicked world out there. The only way to have peace is to have overwhelming military superiority. Walk softly; carry a big stick. We need to work on the walk softly part, and we need to be more careful about when we use the big stick.
LikeLike
“staking out new ground”
“refashion himself as essentially supportive of abortion rights and as a political moderate”
NYT Aug 23, 2024 “On Truth Social, Donald Trump Tries to Refashion Himself as Supportive of Abortion Rights: His post about “reproductive rights” appeared to be an attempt to cast himself as a political moderate on an issue that has the potential to be damaging to him in November.”
One would think it would be quite a challenge for NYT’s Trump stenographer Maggie Haberman to co-write a story that spins Trump’s position on abortion positively, but she is up for the task! Yesterday’s story about Trump and abortion is NOT about an untrustworthy politician who has spewed thousands of lies whose modus operandi is ALWAYS to say whatever he thinks will get him votes even if it’s a blatant lie (“I have proof Obama is an illegitimate president”, “my university will teach you how to get rich”, “The election was stolen from me.”)
Instead, the NYT presents this as Trump “REFASHIONING” his views to reflect the views Trump always had PRIVATELY (which is media shorthand for informing the public of what the candidate REALLY believes.) Trump is simply STAKING OUT NEW GROUND so he can emphasize his moderate abortion views that he expresses in private.
The NYT pulls its punches to present the spin that is most helpful to Trump because NOW Trump wants independent voters to believe a NEW narrative is true:
“Trump struggled for months this year during the Republican presidential primaries with how to discuss the issue, privately saying he “liked” a 16-week abortion ban as he considered what ground to stake out. Ultimately, he publicly said he supports returning the issue to states to decide, but has said he wouldn’t sign a federal abortion ban.”
(By using a vague allusion to “struggling” the article implies Trump struggled with how to talk about abortion because he had these moderate views and they are so important to him. Anyone thinks that Trump EVER “struggles” over anything but what is the best thing to say to con people to get what he wants? What a deceptive article, trying to deceive readers using words like “struggle” in a context that implies something NOBLE instead of pure con man hackery.)
Why NOW is the NYT informing us of what Trump says “in private”? It’s not as if the NYT was emphasizing what Trump said “in private” back when Trump was expressing the anti-abortion views the religious right liked. It is only now that it is helpful for Trump to convince independent voters that he is moderate on abortion when we learn from the NYT that Trump has always expressed his support of some abortion rights “in private”, which is shorthand for expressing those views when he was expressing his true views.
Instead of reminding voters why this “re-fashioning” of Trump’s abortion position shouldn’t be trusted – Trump has a long, long history of being a con man who tells voters whatever he thinks will get him the “win” with no regard for the truth – the NYT does the OPPOSITE!
And in the entire story, the ONLY skepticism about Trump’s “re-fashioning” of his view comes from “DEMOCRATS”. It’s only “partisans” who would doubt Trump’s moderate abortion position, because the NYT informs readers that IN PRIVATE – which is journalism shorthand to inform readers that this is what the candidate really, truly believes since he has no reason to lie – Trump is a moderate! Trump wants abortion to be legal for the first 16 weeks and he does not want a federal abortion ban.
The NYT doesn’t come right out and say that the public should believe that Trump is really and truly moderate on abortion. They simply believe it is ONLY newsworthy to reveal the “truth” – what Trump really says in private – to reassure independent voters that it is very likely Trump is a moderate on abortion just when that information helps Trump. And the NYT believes it is very important that readers understand that the ONLY people expressing skepticism of this view are “Democrats” (partisans).
The NYT believes their job is to explain how Trump has “re-fashioned” his abortion views to reflect the moderate view Trump has always expressed in private.
Now when Kamala modifies her views, it isn’t a re-fashioning at all!
NYT July 24, 2024: “Why the Kamala Harris of Four Years Ago Could Haunt Her in 2024: She ran to the left as progressive ideas dominated the last competitive Democratic primary. Now, in a tough general election, Republicans are digging up her old stances.”
This ENTIRE article about Kamala having (sometimes quite minimal) differences in her position from 4 or more years ago is about how this is something that Republicans will of course weaponize to show how untrustworthy she is. It will HAUNT her. Was there anything about Trump’s past abortion stance that will “haunt” him? Apparently, Haberman and company don’t think so, since only “Democrats” (partisans) express any doubt that Trump means it when he says he is a moderate.
What is ironic is that information that would make a reader doubt TRUMP is referred to in the article about how problematic it is that Kamala would have one view and not the other. If a reader bothers to read that far, since the article’s main focus is how the very fact of changing her mind is a negative that naturally would be used to make voters doubt her. But that’s not the focus of yesterday’s article about Trump’s abortion change.
When Trump changes his stance on an issue far more important to a huge number of voters, the NYT story is not about how Trump will be HAUNTED by his previous position. Only Dems are skeptical. Instead, the NYT going to great pains to inform readers that there is a lot of evidence that they should believe Trump’s moderate abortion stance, because Trump has always been moderate about abortion in private.
LikeLike
How you could think this is a pro-Trump article is very weird to me.
LikeLike
Your position makes sense, because you’ve never been interested in examining your implicit biases about anything. You’ve indicated you believe that there is an admirable value in presenting two “sides” (“opinions”?) because presenting those sides for readers makes the news article “balanced”. You can’t see how an article that to you is showing “both sides” can be spun to normalize a candidate like Trump. You don’t seem to ever see the normalization of Trump by the media – perhaps because you think it is correct to normalize him or perhaps because you don’t understand enough about the media to see how easy it is to “spin” a story and amplify certain things, leave out certain things, equate certain things. And you seem to have a very low view of media critics whereas I have been reading media criticism for decades and it’s made me a more educated consumer of the media. It’s not debatable whether news can be spun. People like Lee Atwater have apologized for some of their successful (but very dishonest) spinning (before he died young of a brain tumor). Spinning is getting the media to report on the narratives most beneficial to your candidates and to minimize as “something that’s not important to mention” the facts that either disprove the false narratives that demonize your opponent or that hurt your candidate.
But with regards to your comment “step away” from the NYT:
You always want to make this personal.
But it’s only personal with you – you don’t like me. There have been excellent books written about this since the 1980s – On Bended Knee by Mark Hertsgaard, Kathleen Hall Jamieson wrote about this decades ago, and folks like Margaret Sullivan and Norman Ornstein and Jeff Jarvis and the late Eric Boehlert have written careful analyses.
What does it mean to be “objective”? You seem to think that the media’s duty is to present both sides, and that is being objective. But most media critics – except those on the far right – understand that being “objective” means reporting on what the evidence-based truth is. It’s simply not enough to report what each side says the truth is, ESPECIALLY at a time when one major party has completely abandoned any pretense of caring what the truth is and the other has not. You have implied that there is no objective truth in politics that can be determined, and that is the Orwellian belief of the media, too.
Think about it. Think about the things that Trump has done ever since he became the leading birther spewing lies about Obama. I could recount them all, but it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that Trump is not credible. He is not normal for a politician in a democracy. It is an objective fact that nothing that comes out of Trump’s mouth can be trusted any more than a broken clock can be trusted just because it will tell the right time twice a day. A politician who constantly lies is no longer credible about anything. But that’s not how the NYT and most of the media presents Trump. The NYT article about Trump’s change in abortion policy once again normalized it. And cast it in the best possible light for Trump because it presented as fact that Trump’s true position – the position he says “in private” – is moderate and having voters believe he is moderate on abortion is what Trump now wants them to believe.
Why is the NYT even reporting what Trump says about abortion “in private” when what Trump says “in private” to a reporter because he wants her to show voters he is really more “moderate” is no more credible than what he says in public?
The facts are in the NYT story — that Trump gave the anti-abortion movement everything they wanted and now Trump has moderated his view. It’s how those facts are spun that matters.
The NYT could have written this story like they wrote the Kamala one — about how Trump is going to be HAUNTED because he changed his mind. They always write negative stories about Dems when they change their mind that characterize those politicians as untrustworthy people who will say anything to be elected.
But when faced with a candidate who objectively is someone who will say anything (including blatant lies) to get elected, the NYT suddenly feels the need to talk about the evidence that this politician is simply STAKING NEW GROUND and RE-FASHIONING himself. And only partisan Democrats doubt that Trump means it.
Imagine if voters were reminded daily in every story that one politician’s statements on anything are completely unreliable. Folks wonder why there are so many Trump voters and why they would trust him but why shouldn’t they trust Trump when the media – even the liberal media – erases his CHARACTER every day. Each time Trump is a new man who, like every politician, has a position on an issue that may or may not be true, but here’s the evidence that it may be true this time — Trump says this in private!
Character is often the most important thing, and yet Trump’s character as a con man who will say and do whatever will get people to give him what he wants is rarely incorporated into any news story. And it is completely missing from that NYT news story that informs readers what Trump believes “privately”. Which of course is simply what Trump has “privately” told the reporter because he wants it reported in the NYT.
You may dismiss my take on Trump’s character as simply an “opinion” that may or may not be true – who knows?
If you believe the jury is still out as to whether Trump has the character of a con man, because it still cannot be objectively determined what Trump’s character is, then you will certainly find lots of agreement at the NYT. There just isn’t enough evidence to know yet, right? And until we have “enough” evidence, Trump must be normalized.
The media needed very little evidence to write stories about how Dems “objectively” will be haunted by their changes of policies, and how Dems “objectively” can’t be trusted and that is infused in so many articles. They started to do so with Kamala, stopped for a bit, but I won’t be surprised if it ramps up. They did it with Walz in all their National Guard stories, much like they did with Kerry, presenting the attacks on them as if they were credible and not partisan. But when it comes to Trump, his critics are characterized as partisan and thus not very credible.
Who is skeptical that Trump is moderate on abortion? Only “Democrats”.
Is the jury still out about whether or not Trump is “moderate” on abortion? Why is that question even being asked? It doesn’t matter what Trump “says” in private because nothing Trump says reflects anything except what he thinks will help him get what he wants if he says it at that particular time. That isn’t an “opinion” – it is what Trump does right in front of us. Having people trust you doesn’t mean you are trustworthy. What you actually do over time makes you trustworthy. Neither you or the NYT seem to understand the difference, and see every negative characterization of Republicans as simply a matter of opinion. How can the NYT characterize Lucy as untrustworthy just because of the hundreds of times she pulled out the football? That’s merely an “opinion” because here are some people who say she’s trustworthy so who knows??
LikeLike
FLERP! U.S. aggression? Maybe oligarchical . . . but aggression from a dictator country or a kingship is not exactly the same as “aggression” by a democratic country.
One wants to over-reach control of the populous and the other wants to free it. Or don’t you think that matters. CBK
LikeLike
Below is the article you think is pro-Trump, that you think is parroting Trump’s attempt to make himself look like a moderate. That is just terrible reading of the article.
Curious, anyone else think this is an article that parrots Trump talking points and makes him look like a sympathetic moderate? I offer no commentary. Just read the words and draw your own conclusions.
Donald J. Trump, who recently said he has “no regrets” about appointing the Supreme Court supermajority that overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion rights, declared on social media on Friday that his administration will be “great” for women’s “reproductive rights.”
Mr. Trump’s use of the specific phrase “reproductive rights” — the language used by abortion-rights advocates — appeared to be an effort by the former president to refashion himself as essentially supportive of abortion rights and as a political moderate on an issue that has the potential to be damaging to him in November.
“My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights,” he wrote on Friday morning on Truth Social, his social media platform.
At the Democratic National Convention, the end of Roe — and Mr. Trump’s professed pride in appointing the justices who eliminated it — was a central focus. Women told haunting, personal stories about the dangers they faced being denied abortions after the ruling was overturned, with pregnancies that were not viable and that threatened their own health.
Vice President Kamala Harris, who has been at ease discussing reproductive rights on behalf of the Biden-Harris administration, talked at length in her nomination acceptance speech on Thursday night about Mr. Trump’s role in curtailing those rights. She has framed Mr. Trump as a threat to “freedoms” — reproductive freedom and the freedom of economic mobility among them.
“I believe America cannot truly be prosperous unless Americans are fully able to make their own decisions about their own lives, especially on matters of heart and home,” Ms. Harris said. “But tonight, in America, too many women are not able to make those decisions. And let’s be clear about how we got here. Donald Trump handpicked members of the United States Supreme Court to take away reproductive freedom. And now he brags about it.”
She also described hearing painful stories around the country, adding, “This is what is happening in our country, because of Donald Trump. And understand, he is not done.”
Mr. Trump watched her speech and posted on Truth Social about it roughly 40 times, often writing in capital letters to criticize Ms. Harris’s remarks on abortion and other issues.
The Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe helped mobilize Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections, and Democrats believe it will do so again this year. Some 22 states have implemented bans on abortion at various stages of pregnancy since the end of Roe in 2022.
Mr. Trump recently told CBS News that he has “no regrets” about the Supreme Court justices he appointed who brought about the end of federal abortion protections.
Mr. Trump used to support abortion rights before declaring himself anti-abortion in 2011 when he was considering a Republican presidential campaign. He has appeared uncomfortable with how to discuss the issue of abortion ever since he officially became a Republican candidate in 2015. He ran hard to the right on the issue, trying to convince social conservatives that they could trust him. While social conservatives have applauded the end of Roe, his new language is not likely to please them.
“My advice: When you’re in a hole stop digging,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council and a social conservative who wanted tougher anti-abortion language in the Republican National Committee platform. “This week made clear, the D.N.C. has the corner on the abortion market. He is not only suppressing his own support, he is going to hurt the vast majority of Republican candidates who are 100 percent pro-life.”
He struggled for months this year during the Republican presidential primaries with how to discuss the issue, privately saying he “liked” a 16-week abortion ban as he considered what ground to stake out. Ultimately, he publicly said he supports returning the issue to states to decide, but has said he wouldn’t sign a federal abortion ban.
Democrats are skeptical of that statement, and believe if he wins another term he will be guided by conservatives seeking more restrictive measures on reproductive rights.
On Thursday night, hours before using the language employed by abortion-rights activists, Mr. Trump once again falsely claimed that “everyone” wanted Roe “terminated” and brought back to the states. In reality, Democrats forcefully opposed the move and lobbied against it.
A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to an email asking for clarification on why he was staking out new ground.
LikeLike
lol that “staking out new ground” is how the NYT characterizes – or rather, “spins” – an outrageous Trump flip-flop.
“Staking out new ground” can be something good! Voters don’t distrust or doubt candidates for “staking out new ground”! Especially when that “new ground” is simply a “normal” Republican candidate “struggling” to tell voters the nuanced and MODERATE position on abortion that he has always expressed “in private”.
Do you think it is merely an “opinion” that Trump has a long history of being a completely untrustworthy con man who says whatever helps him get what he wants, regardless of whether it is true and regardless of whether he said something different at another time?
Trusting that this time the words coming out of Trump’s mouth are what he really believes is as ridiculous as trusting that this time Lucy is going to let Charlie Brown kick the football instead of pulling it away. But perhaps Charlie Brown’s faith in Lucy is because he just read in the NYT that “in private” Lucy says she is going to hold the football and let Charlie Brown kick it, and she’s been “struggling” with how to best let Charlie Brown know that from now on she is definitely going to hold the football so she can kick it. Perhaps Charlie Brown read the “fair and balanced” article in the NYT that the only people who are skeptical about whether Lucy will really hold the football are the people who hate Lucy! No one else is skeptical! Why should Charlie Brown be skeptical if he’s not one of those haters? Lucy has said IN PRIVATE – when she has no reason to lie – that she really means it this time.
And it is the duty of the NYT to carefully write the story to make sure Charlie Brown didn’t perceive Lucy as a person who shouldn’t be trusted in the future.
She can’t be characterized as someone who shouldn’t be trusted since that’s just an “opinion” and the opinion that Lucy can be trusted to hold the football is just as valid! The NYT wants Charlie Brown to know that Lucy has modified her previous position because she is just staking out new ground.
The fact that the NYT goes through contortions (Trump has a moderate view “in private” and he’s “staking out new ground!”) to support a false characterization that gives credibility to Trump’s new “moderate” abortion stance is part of the problem.
In the NYT, the only politicians who get portrayed as likely to be HAUNTED by even the mildest changes in their policies are Democrats. Why would there be any reason for Trump to be “haunted” when the NYT will see to it that what Trump does is never presented as reflective of his con man character. It’s just a normal “re-fashioning” of views to “stake out a new ground”.
LikeLike
Ma’am, please step away from the Times.
LikeLike
FYI, even the quote from the Republican Tony Perkins gives credibility to the narrative that Trump wanted the NYT to amplify about how his views on abortion are really moderate:
“He is not only suppressing his own support, he is going to hurt the vast majority of Republican candidates who are 100 percent pro-life.”
Love how Tony Perkins reinforces Trump’s narrative by “warning” that pro-life candidates who are NOT “moderate” like Trump will be “hurt” which he knows isn’t true at all – did Trump send Maggie Haberman to Tony to get that quote after he “privately” said in front of her that he supports abortion before 16 weeks and opposes a federal abortion ban. Maggie could rush to report what Trump thinks “in private” AND get a quote from a Republican that supported the “Trump is a moderate on abortion” narrative without the Republican actually saying anything negative about Trump at all!
Unbelievable that you think this kind of positive spinning is negative or “fair and balanced”. Giving credibility to the unlikeliest of narratives just because it helps Trump and hurts the Democrat is not being fair and balanced. And the NYT did that in both articles. Spun the facts to give credibility to Trump’s new, moderate abortion position and to sow doubts about Kamala because of fairly modest changes on issues that are not foremost in this election.
LikeLike
Trump’s attempt to backtrack after having purposefully, himself, appointed justices who would take away women’s control over their own bodies is one of the lowest stunts in his long, sordid history of attempted cons. Trump has no morality, ofc. He didn’t betray women throughout this country because of misguided religious ideas. He did it from a calculus of personal gain, to suck up to evangelicals. Now, he is trying to backtrack because he knows that this one issue can cost him the election. What a lowlife POS. I hope women turn out in huge numbers to tell him just what a lowlife POS he is.
LikeLike
The Perkins quote demonstrates that Trump is flailing in desperation and failing on two fronts: (1) he is failing to convince pro-choice voters that his administration will be moderate on abortion rights, because that is completely at odds with his record (a point the article makes repeatedly) and (2) he is alienating his pro-life voter base by embarking down this path.
This is so basic, I don’t know how you can misunderstand it. Your reading of this article is strange and approaches paranoia. You are jumping at shadows.
LikeLike
Bob,
I agree. What you just said about Trump isn’t just an “opinion” that should always be presented with a countering opinion from someone who describes Trump as a person who does NOT act from a calculus of personal gain.
Trump acts from a calculus of personal gain. The evidence of that is right in front of our eyes, the evidence of his actions his entire life. His fake university, his leadership of the birther movement, and so on and so on right up to his extorting help from Zelensky to make a campaign smear against Biden and inciting the insurrection. But the NYT thinks it is important to tell us what Trump believes “in private” to help give credibility to his new con – presenting himself as a moderate on abortion.
Trump would be a lousy and unsuccessful con man if the public thought of him as a con man. So the so-called liberal media – led by the NYT – has practically contorted itself into a pretzel to NOT make the fact that Trump is a con man part of the narrative about Trump. Instead, Trump’s motives are always left unexamined – almost laughably so. Journalism should be giving an accurate picture of Trump and instead it presents a “both sides” picture which bends over backward to give credibility to the side that should have none, and bends over backward to make the other side less credible for fear that the facts itself might make Trump look bad and thus be too “biased”. And they have done much damage to our democracy as a result. We live in Orwellian times where lying right wing politicians aren’t allowed to be portrayed accurately and progressive politicians running against them must be heavily criticized for relatively minor issues in the name of “balance”.
But we can all live in hope that one day in some future time there will be enough evidence accumulated so that the issue of whether Trump acts from a calculus of personal gain can finally be determined.
LikeLike
Discontinue the lithium.
LikeLike
FLERP! And Trump saying it makes it so.
BTW, During the DNC, Trump said something about his working “for the people.” I’ve never heard him use those terms before . . . I wonder how he came up with that ideaa?
Here’s the Trump rule: If it sounds good and might help me $$ or politically, say it, whether it’s true or not–doesn’t matter. CBK
LikeLike
He’s the king of the bullshitters, isn’t he?
LikeLike
It’s true.
I oppose negotiating with Putin because he demands to steal Ukrainian lands and negotiate his victory.
I’m all in favor of negotiating with Hamas, even though they are terrorists. The truth is that neither Hamas nor Netanyahu wants a ceasefire. Each time they get close to reaching a ceasefire, they take turns sabotaging it.
LikeLike
Negotiations with Putin should start with the demand that he turn himself in to the International Court of Criminal Justice to face his indictment for war crimes.
LikeLike
Then Ukraine can negotiate to return the captured territory within Russia proper in exchange for the criminal aggressor withdrawing from every square millimeter of Ukraine, including Crimea and the Donbas.
LikeLike