"The result is that, as Trump oversees a war of choice that will disrupt the entire globe, the press struggles to explain that Trump doesn't know, hasn't accounted for, really basic risks in his war. The press is largely incapable of holding Trump accountable for what he just did because they have come to internalize his delusions of grandeur."
"One of the first questions he got was this: What does he imagine the worst-case scenario in Iran to be? 'I guess the worst case would be we do this and somebody takes over who's as bad as the previous person,' he said. 'Right, that could happen? We don't want that to happen. It would probably be the worst, you go through this, and then in five years you realize you put somebody in who's no better.'"
"Virtually all political journalists happily serve as data mules for his carefully packaged tweets. And the premium that political journalism places on access ensures that streams of journalists will happily report that Trump is vigorous, without mentioning that he vigorously vomits up unhinged rants."
Political journalists have struggled for over a decade to effectively cover Trump's relationship with factual accuracy. Despite fact-checkers like Daniel Dale, Trump's volume of false statements overwhelms traditional accountability mechanisms. Journalists prioritize access and repeat his messaging uncritically, often framing concerning statements positively. When Trump admits ignorance about critical risks in military conflicts, such as worst-case scenarios in Iran, journalists focus on his demeanor rather than the substantive gaps in planning. This coverage pattern enables Trump to pursue consequential foreign policy decisions without adequate scrutiny of their potential consequences or his understanding of them.
#media-accountability #trump-coverage #fact-checking-failures #foreign-policy #journalistic-access-bias
Read at emptywheel
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]